Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 20:57:55 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, juri.lelli@arm.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, xlpang@redhat.com, bigeasy@linutronix.de,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
        jdesfossez@efficios.com, bristot@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/4] futex: Use smp_store_release() in
 mark_wake_futex()
Message-ID: <20161005035755.GC32728@linux-80c1.suse>
References: <20161003091234.879763059@infradead.org>
 <20161003091847.527807466@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161003091847.527807466@infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1086
Lines: 34

On Mon, 03 Oct 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

>Since the futex_q can dissapear the instruction after assigning NULL,
>this really should be a RELEASE barrier. That stops loads from hitting
>dead memory too.
>
>Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
>---
> kernel/futex.c |    3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>--- a/kernel/futex.c
>+++ b/kernel/futex.c
>@@ -1288,8 +1288,7 @@ static void mark_wake_futex(struct wake_
> 	 * memory barrier is required here to prevent the following
> 	 * store to lock_ptr from getting ahead of the plist_del.
> 	 */
>-	smp_wmb();
>-	q->lock_ptr = NULL;
>+	smp_store_release(&q->lock_ptr, NULL);
> }

Hmm, what if we relied on the implicit barrier in the wake_q_add()
above and got rid of the smp_wmb altogether? We'd obviously have to
move up __unqueue_futex(), but all we care about is the publishing
store to lock_ptr being the last operation, or at least the plist_del,
such that the wakeup order is respected; ie:

   __unqueue_futex(q);
   wake_q_add(wake_q, p);
   q->lock_ptr = NULL;

Thanks,
Davidlohr