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:   Thu, 28 Jun 2018 19:30:45 +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,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        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>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] locking: Clarify requirements for
 smp_mb__after_spinlock()
Message-ID: <20180628173045.GA4975@andrea>
References: <1530182480-13205-1-git-send-email-andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
 <1530182480-13205-3-git-send-email-andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
 <20180628150550.GI2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180628150550.GI2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 05:05:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:41:19PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > - * This barrier must provide two things:
> > - *
> > - *   - it must guarantee a STORE before the spin_lock() is ordered against a
> > - *     LOAD after it, see the comments at its two usage sites.
> > - *
> > - *   - it must ensure the critical section is RCsc.
> > - *
> > - * The latter is important for cases where we observe values written by other
> > - * CPUs in spin-loops, without barriers, while being subject to scheduling.
> > - *
> > - * CPU0			CPU1			CPU2
> > - *
> > - *			for (;;) {
> > - *			  if (READ_ONCE(X))
> > - *			    break;
> > - *			}
> > - * X=1
> > - *			<sched-out>
> > - *						<sched-in>
> > - *						r = X;
> > - *
> > - * without transitivity it could be that CPU1 observes X!=0 breaks the loop,
> > - * we get migrated and CPU2 sees X==0.
> 
> Please don't remove that; that explains _why_ we need a full memory
> barrier here.

Peter:

Both you and Boqun stated that the above snippet is "bad":

  http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180312085646.GE4064@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net

and I do agree with your assessment! ;-)

I've no objection to keep that comment (together with the
"clarification" suggested in this patch) _once_ replaced
that snippet with something else (say, with the snippet
Boqun suggested in:

  http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180312085600.aczjkpn73axzs2sb@tardis ):

is this what you mean?

  Andrea