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, 23 Apr 2019 13:19:55 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: atomic_t.txt: Explain ordering provided
 by smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1904191312200.1406-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
 <20190419180017.GP4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190419182620.GF14111@linux.ibm.com>
 <1555719429.t9n8gkf70y.astroid@bobo.none>
 <20190420085440.GK14111@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190423123209.GR4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190423133010.GK3923@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190423134003.GV4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190423134003.GV4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20190423201955.GX3923@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 03:40:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 06:30:10AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > There are a great many that look like this:
> > 
> > 	smp_mb__before_atomic();
> > 	clear_bit(NFSD4_CLIENT_UPCALL_LOCK, &clp->cl_flags);
> > 	smp_mb__after_atomic();
> 
> Ooh, marvel at the comment describing the ordering there. Oh wait :-(
> So much for checkpatch.pl I suppose.

Especially if the code was in the kernel before checkpatch.pl started
asking for comments.  Which might or might not be the case with this
code.  No idea either way.

> I think the first is a release order for the 'LOCK' bit and the second
> is because of wake_up_bit() being a shitty interface.
> 
> So maybe that should've been:
> 
> 	clear_bit_unlock(NFSD4_CLIENT_UPCALL_LOCK, &clp->cl_flags);
> 	smp_mb__after_atomic();
> 	wake_up_bit(&clp->cl_flags, NFSD4_CLIENT_UPCALL_LOCK);
> 
> instead?

Quite possibly, but my brain is too fried to be sure.

							Thanx, Paul