Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S933585AbdGTGNf (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 20 Jul 2017 02:13:35 -0400
Received: from mail-pg0-f68.google.com ([74.125.83.68]:36408 "EHLO
        mail-pg0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S932387AbdGTGNc (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 20 Jul 2017 02:13:32 -0400
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:14:34 +0800
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] documentation: Fix two-CPU control-dependency example
Message-ID: <20170720061434.zjjrkkdu7cqkxx6c@tardis>
References: <0d60072f-3848-a2b7-ce18-e1ed317b5c09@gmail.com>
 <20170719174334.GH3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <101f5108-663e-7fa4-ac2b-e790320e4e6f@gmail.com>
 <20170719215602.GK3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20170720013112.fmrml6abdhi2nqdt@tardis>
 <20170720054704.GM3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170720054704.GM3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1664
Lines: 72

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:47:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[...]
> > Hi Paul,
> > 
> > I know the compiler could optimize atomics in very interesting ways, but
> > this case is about volatile, so I guess our case is still fine? ;-)
> 
> Hello, Boqun,
> 
> When I asked that question, the answer I got was "the compiler must
> emit the load instruction, but is under no obligation to actually use the
> value loaded".
> 
> I don't happen to like that answer, by the way.  ;-)
> 

Me neither, seems to me the kernel happens to work well at
compiler-optimization's mercy ;-/

With claim like that, compiler could do optimization as turning:

	struct task_struct *owner;

	for (;;) {
		owner = READ_ONCE(lock->owner);
		if (owner && !mutex_spin_on_owner(lock, owner))
			break;
		/* ... */

into:

	struct task_struct *owner;

	owner = READ_ONCE(lock->owner);

	for (;;READ_ONCE(lock->owner)) {
		if (owner && !mutex_spin_on_owner(lock, owner))
			break;
		/* ... */

Because the load executed in every loop, and they just happen to choose
not to use the values. And this is within their rights!

Regards,
Boqun

> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> > > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0062r1.html
> > > 
> > 
> > Great material to wake up mind in the morning! Thanks.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Boqun
> > 
> > > What are your thoughts on this?
> > > 
> > > 							Thanx, Paul
> > > 
> > > >             Thanks, Akira
> > > > 
> > > > > That said, I very much welcome critical reviews of memory-barriers.txt,
> > > > > so please do feel free to continue doing that!
> > > > > 
> > > > > 							Thanx, Paul
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
>