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:   Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:30:25 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
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: <20180626153025.GD2458@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1529918258-7295-1-git-send-email-andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
 <20180625095031.GX2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180625105618.GA12676@andrea>
 <20180625123121.GY2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180625131643.GA15126@andrea>
 <20180625141830.GC2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180625145611.GA16333@andrea>
 <20180625163705.GE2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180626100942.GA8295@andrea>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180626100942.GA8295@andrea>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 12:09:42PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > Same RFC for the first comment:
> > > 
> > >   /*
> > >    * The above implies an smp_mb(), which matches with the smp_wmb() from
> > >    * woken_wake_function() such that if we observe WQ_FLAG_WOKEN we must
> > >    * also observe all state before the wakeup.
> > >    */
> > > 
> > > What is the corresponding snippet & BUG_ON()?
> > 
> > The comment there suggest:
> > 
> > 	if (condition)
> > 		break;
> > 
> > 	set_current_state(UNINTERRUPTIBLE);		condition = true;
> > 	/* smp_mb() */					smp_wmb();
> > 							wq_entry->flags |= WQ_FLAG_WOKEN;
> > 	if (!wq_entry->flags & WQ_FLAG_WOKEN)
> > 		schedule();
> > 
> > 
> > 	BUG_ON((wq_entry->flags & WQ_FLAG_WOKEN) && !condition);
> > 
> > 
> > But looking at that now, I think that's wrong. Because the the purpose
> > was that, if we don't do the try_to_wake_up(), our task still needs to
> > observe the condition store.
> > 
> > But for that we need a barrier between the wq_entry->flags load and the
> > second condition test, which would (again) be B, not A.
> 
> Agreed.  Now that I stared at the code a bit more, I think that (A) is
> still needed for the synchronization on "->state" and "->flags" (an SB
> pattern seems again to be hidden in the call to try_to_wake_up()):
> 
>   p->state = mode;                           wq_entry->flags |= WQ_FLAG_WOKEN;
>   smp_mb(); // A                             try_to_wake_up():
>   if (!(wq_entry->flags & WQ_FLAG_WOKEN))      <full barrier>
>      schedule()                                if (!(p->state & mode))
>                                                  goto out;
> 
>   BUG_ON(!(wq_entry->flags & WQ_FLAG_WOKEN) && !(p->state & mode))
> 
> So, I think that we should keep (A).

Yes, very much so. Once we actually get to use ttwu() that barrier is
required.

> I am planning to send these changes (smp_mb() in woken_wake_function()
> and fixes to the comments) as a separate patch.

Probably makes sense. Thanks for looking at this, I have vague memories
of being slightly confused when I wrote all that :-)