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 15:00:51 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, 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>,
        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: <20180625130051.GA2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20180625095031.GX2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <1529918258-7295-1-git-send-email-andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
 <2779.1529928765@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <20180625122850.GA14561@andrea>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180625122850.GA14561@andrea>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 02:28:50PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 01:12:45PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > 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?
> > 
> > I think because RELEASE and ACQUIRE concepts didn't really exist in Linux at
> > the time I wrote the doc, so the choices were read/readdep, write or full.
> > 
> > Since this document defines the *minimum* you can expect rather than what the
> > kernel actually gives you, I think it probably makes sense to switch to
> > RELEASE and ACQUIRE here.
> 
> RELEASE and ACQUIRE are not enough in SB.  Can you elaborate?

I prefer RELEASE vs wait-condition and treat task->state as an internal
matter. Also note how the set_current_task() comment is fairly vague on
what exact barriers are used. It just states 'sufficient'.

Maybe I should just give up and accept smp_mb(), but strictly speaking
that is overkill, but it is the only sufficient barrier we currently
have.