Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 13:54:38 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@parallels.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [PATCH] sched: Add smp_rmb() in task rq locking
 cycles
Message-ID: <20150221125438.GH23367@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <20150217160532.GW4166@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20150217183636.GR5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20150217215231.GK4166@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20150218155904.GA27687@redhat.com>
 <54E4E479.4050003@colorfullife.com>
 <20150218224317.GC5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20150219141905.GA11018@redhat.com>
 <54E77CC0.5030401@colorfullife.com>
 <20150220184551.GQ2896@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20150220202319.GA21132@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150220202319.GA21132@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22.1 (2013-10-16)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1747
Lines: 47

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 09:23:19PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > I think I agree with Oleg in that we only need the smp_rmb(); of course
> > that wants a somewhat elaborate comment to go along with it. How about
> > something like so:
> >
> > 	spin_unlock_wait(&local);
> > 	/*
> > 	 * The above spin_unlock_wait() forms a control dependency with
> > 	 * any following stores; because we must first observe the lock
> > 	 * unlocked and we cannot speculate stores.
> > 	 *
> > 	 * Subsequent loads however can easily pass through the loads
> > 	 * represented by spin_unlock_wait() and therefore we need the
> > 	 * read barrier.
> > 	 *
> > 	 * This together is stronger than ACQUIRE for @local and
> > 	 * therefore we will observe the complete prior critical section
> > 	 * of @local.
> > 	 */
> > 	 smp_rmb();
> >
> > The obvious alternative is using spin_unlock_wait() with an
> > smp_load_acquire(), but that might be more expensive on some archs due
> > to repeated issuing of memory barriers.
> 
> Yes, yes, thanks!
> 
> But note that we need the same comment after sem_lock()->spin_is_locked().
> 
> So perhaps we can add this comment into include/linux/spinlock.h ? In this
> case perhaps it makes sense to add, say,
> 
> 	#define smp_mb__after_unlock_wait()	smp_rmb()
> 
> with this comment above? Another potential user task_work_run(). It could
> use rmb() too, but this again needs the same fat comment.
> 
> Ehat do you think?

Sure, that works.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/