Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751650AbdF2AFv (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 28 Jun 2017 20:05:51 -0400
Received: from mail-io0-f180.google.com ([209.85.223.180]:36719 "EHLO
        mail-io0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751544AbdF2AFr (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 28 Jun 2017 20:05:47 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170628235412.GB3721@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20170628170321.GQ3721@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1706281547270.27696-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
 <20170628235412.GB3721@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 17:05:46 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: vwncesUxSRaG3Eg58JgDrDLXd9Y
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwLq5oPvY5HwpKq9LkCuQ5No7O5g=+ij1T68ONu-gOm_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL rcu/next] RCU commits for 4.13
To: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        priyalee.kushwaha@intel.com,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Stanis=C5=82aw_Drozd?= <drozdziak1@gmail.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, ldr709@gmail.com,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>, Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>,
        Krister Johansen <kjlx@templeofstupid.com>,
        Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>, dcb314@hotmail.com,
        Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1773
Lines: 39

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Linus, are you dead-set against defining spin_unlock_wait() to be
> spin_lock + spin_unlock?  For example, is the current x86 implementation
> of spin_unlock_wait() really a non-negotiable hard requirement?  Or
> would you be willing to live with the spin_lock + spin_unlock semantics?

So I think the "same as spin_lock + spin_unlock" semantics are kind of insane.

One of the issues is that the same as "spin_lock + spin_unlock" is
basically now architecture-dependent. Is it really the
architecture-dependent ordering you want to define this as?

So I just think it's a *bad* definition. If somebody wants something
that is exactly equivalent to spin_lock+spin_unlock, then dammit, just
do *THAT*. It's completely pointless to me to define
spin_unlock_wait() in those terms.

And if it's not equivalent to the *architecture* behavior of
spin_lock+spin_unlock, then I think it should be descibed in terms
that aren't about the architecture implementation (so you shouldn't
describe it as "spin_lock+spin_unlock", you should describe it in
terms of memory barrier semantics.

And if we really have to use the spin_lock+spinunlock semantics for
this, then what is the advantage of spin_unlock_wait at all, if it
doesn't fundamentally avoid some locking overhead of just taking the
spinlock in the first place?

And if we can't use a cheaper model, maybe we should just get rid of
it entirely?

Finally: if the memory barrier semantics are exactly the same, and
it's purely about avoiding some nasty contention case, I think the
concept is broken - contention is almost never an actual issue, and if
it is, the problem is much deeper than spin_unlock_wait().

                  Linus