Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] exit: Lockless iteration over task list in
 mm_update_next_owner()
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, oleg@redhat.com,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, mingo@kernel.org,
        paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, keescook@chromium.org, riel@redhat.com,
        mhocko@suse.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, marcos.souza.org@gmail.com,
        hoeun.ryu@gmail.com, pasha.tatashin@oracle.com, gs051095@gmail.com,
        ebiederm@xmission.com, dhowells@redhat.com,
        rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
References: <152473763015.29458.1131542311542381803.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
 <152474046779.29458.5294808258041953930.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
 <20180426123542.GA819@andrea>
 <c21ad28c-cd23-2a75-6622-ba49c37137db@virtuozzo.com>
 <20180426152000.GB4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
Message-ID: <1d7c0dd6-22d8-89ea-15cc-bc3d46024bbd@virtuozzo.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Apr 2018 18:56:52 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180426152000.GB4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: virtuozzo.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Apr 2018 15:56:59.3082 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 2829d981-1031-466f-c51b-08d5ab8e5944
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 0bc7f26d-0264-416e-a6fc-8352af79c58f
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VI1PR0801MB1344
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 26.04.2018 18:20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 04:52:39PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>> In the patch I used the logic, that the below code:
>>
>> 	x = A;
>> 	spin_lock();
>> 	spin_unlock();
>> 	spin_lock();
>> 	spin_unlock();
>> 	y = B;
>>
>> cannot reorder much than:
>>
>> 	spin_lock();
>> 	x = A;		<- this can't become visible later, that spin_unlock()
>> 	spin_unlock();
>> 	spin_lock();
>> 	y = B;		<- this can't become visible earlier, than spin_lock()
>> 	spin_unlock();
>>
>> Is there a problem?
> 
> The two stores will be ordered, but only at the strength of an
> smp_wmb(). The above construct does not imply smp_mb(). The difference
> is observable on real hardware (Power).

Ah, thanks.

But hopefully, smp_rmb() should be enough here.