Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 13:45:13 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: Roman Pen <roman.penyaev@profitbricks.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] [RFC] workqueue: fix ghost PENDING flag while doing
 MQ IO
Message-ID: <20160426174513.GM7822@mtj.duckdns.org>
References: <1461597771-25352-1-git-send-email-roman.penyaev@profitbricks.com>
 <20160425154847.GZ7822@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <571EC2B9.6000802@hurleysoftware.com>
 <20160426151507.GK7822@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <571FA51F.2040702@hurleysoftware.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <571FA51F.2040702@hurleysoftware.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 969
Lines: 30

Hello, Peter.

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 10:27:59AM -0700, Peter Hurley wrote:
> > It's unlikely to make any measureable difference.  Is xchg() actually
> > cheaper than store + rmb?
> 
> store + mfence (full barrier), yes. Roughly 2x faster.
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/2/607

Ah, didn't know that.  Thanks for the pointer.

> > I'm not necessarily against making all clearings of
> > PENDING to be followed by a rmb or use xhcg.  Reasons 2-4 are pretty
> > weak tho.
> 
> I agree 2 and 3 are not the best reasons.
> Actually, it looks that I'm in the minority anyway, and that style-wise,
> naked barrier is preferred.

As long as what's happening is clearly documented, I think either is
fine.  I'm gonna go with Roman's mb patch for -stable fix but think
it'd be nice to have a separate patch to consolidate the paths which
clear PENDING and make them use xchg.  If you can spin up a patch for
that, I'd be happy to apply it to wq/for-3.7.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun