Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 08:20:30 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
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: <20161005062030.GB3568@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20161003091234.879763059@infradead.org>
 <20161003091847.527807466@infradead.org>
 <20161005035755.GC32728@linux-80c1.suse>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161005035755.GC32728@linux-80c1.suse>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22.1 (2013-10-16)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1386
Lines: 36

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:57:55PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> 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;

Less obvious but would work I suppose, I didn't look too hard at the
ordering requirements on __unqueue_futex(), but an early morning glance
(without tea) doesn't show any obvious problems with that.