Re: [PATCH] doc: Update wake_up() & co. memory-barrier guarantees

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 08:44:14AM -0700, Daniel Lustig wrote:
> RISC-V is (other-)multi-copy-atomic, so I don't think transitivity
> should be an issue here.

Ah, ok.

> We do have a "fence w,r", but we decided to warn against actually using
> it for a few reasons: 1) lack of known common use cases :), 2) IIRC
> there was some corner case discrepancy between the axiomatic and
> operational models if we allowed it, and 3) in practice, it's already
> both expensive enough and obscure enough that many or most
> implementations will simply just treat it as "fence rw,rw" anyway.

Because the majority of the cost is flushing the store-buffer in either
case?

> So, in theory, "fence w,r" should be enough to prevent SB-like patterns.
> It's just not yet clear that it's a big enough win that it's worth
> creating a new fence macro for it, or pulling the current RISC-V
> recommendation against its use.  What do you all think?

It was mostly a theoretical argument for why smp_mb() is too strong, not
a real practical desire to have w,t.