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 12:31:46 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org,
        jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
        josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, fweisbec@gmail.com,
        oleg@redhat.com, joel@joelfernandes.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/27] rcu: Add comment documenting how
 rcu_seq_snap works
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20180626003448.GA26209@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180626003513.27812-16-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180626171454.GI2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180626180855.GE3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180626192113.GM2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180626192113.GM2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20180626193146.GK3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 09:21:13PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:08:55AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 07:14:54PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 05:35:02PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> > > > 
> > > > rcu_seq_snap may be tricky to decipher. Lets document how it works with
> > > > an example to make it easier.
> > > 
> > > Since you had me looking at them functions; why isn't rcu_seq_snap()
> > > using smp_load_acquire() and rcu_seq_end() using smp_store_release() ?
> > > Their respective comments seem to suggest that would be sufficent.
> > 
> > I do not believe that this would suffice.  Would it make sense to refer
> > to Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering in the comment header?
> 
> No, because I can't read that thing in an editor.
> 
> > Except that this would invite sprinkling this pathname far and wide...
> > 
> > The key point is that these functions are part of the any-to-any
> > memory-ordering guarantee that RCU grace periods provide.
> 
> Then the existing comment is misleading and really needs change.

Would it be sufficient to add something like "The memory barrier is
required to support the many-to-many ordering guaranteed by RCU grace
periods"?

							Thanx, Paul