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:   Mon, 29 Apr 2019 07:49:56 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        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>
 <20190429092430.GF26546@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190429092430.GF26546@localhost>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20190429144956.GQ3923@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:24:30AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 06:30:10AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 02:32:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 01:54:40AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > > > 	And lock acquisition??? acm_read_bulk_callback().
> > > 
> > > I think it goes with the set_bit() earlier, but what do I know.
> > 
> > Quite possibly!  In that case it should be smp_mb__after_atomic(),
> > and it would be nice if it immediately followed the set_bit().
> 
> I noticed this one last week as well. The set_bit() had been incorrectly
> moved and without noticing the smp_mb__before_atomic(). I've submitted a
> patch to restore it and to fix a related issue to due missing barriers:
> 
> 	https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190425160540.10036-5-johan@kernel.org

Good to know, thank you!

							Thanx, Paul