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:   Wed, 5 Dec 2018 00:59:07 +0100
From:   Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
To:     Roman Penyaev <rpenyaev@suse.de>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] epoll: use rwlock in order to reduce
 ep_poll_callback() contention
Message-ID: <20181204235907.GA5388@andrea>
References: <20181203110237.14787-1-rpenyaev@suse.de>
 <CAHk-=wiQX4HnBpyrxCwJmhBRff0GG65tOhsRnA=2KdYL=PBdyg@mail.gmail.com>
 <83edf06ce9db540495b53527eca3248c@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <83edf06ce9db540495b53527eca3248c@suse.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Roman,

On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 12:50:58PM +0100, Roman Penyaev wrote:
> On 2018-12-03 18:34, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> > This also ends up making the memory ordering of "xchg()" very very
> > important. Yes, we've documented it as being an ordering op, but I'm
> > not sure we've relied on it this directly before.
> 
> Seems exit_mm() does exactly the same, the following chunk:
> 
> 		up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> 
> 		self.task = current;
> 		self.next = xchg(&core_state->dumper.next, &self);
> 
> 
> At least code pattern looks similar.

Maybe add a comment on top of (your) xchg() to note/justify these memory
ordering requirements?  As Paul said: "if there are races, this would
help force them to happen" (and simplify the review, this/future).

  Andrea