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;
Date:   Mon, 25 Jun 2018 12:56:18 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: Update wake_up() & co. memory-barrier guarantees
Message-ID: <20180625105618.GA12676@andrea>
References: <1529918258-7295-1-git-send-email-andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
 <20180625095031.GX2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180625095031.GX2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:50:31AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:17:38AM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > Both the implementation and the users' expectation [1] for the various
> > wakeup primitives have evolved over time, but the documentation has not
> > kept up with these changes: brings it into 2018.
> 
> I wanted to reply to this saying that I'm not aware of anything relying
> on this actually being a smp_mb() and that I've been treating it as an
> RELEASE.
> 
> But then I found my own comment that goes with smp_mb__after_spinlock(),
> which explains why we do in fact need the transitive thing if I'm not
> mistaken.

A concrete example being the store-buffering pattern reported in [1].


> 
> So yes, I suppose we're entirely suck with the full memory barrier
> semantics like that. But I still find it easier to think of it like a
> RELEASE that pairs with the ACQUIRE of waking up, such that the task
> is guaranteed to observe it's own wake condition.
> 
> And maybe that is the thing I'm missing here. These comments only state
> that it does in fact imply a full memory barrier, but do not explain
> why, should it?

"code (people) is relying on it" is really the only "why" I can think
of.  With this patch, that same/SB pattern is also reported in memory
-barriers.txt.  Other ideas?

  Andrea