Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 1 Aug 2022 06:40:20 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
cc:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        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>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] wait_bit: do read barrier after testing a bit
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wjA8HBrVqAqAetUvwNr=hcvhfnO7oMrOAd4V8bbSqokNA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.02.2208010628510.22006@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.02.2207310703170.14394@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com> <CAMj1kXFYRNrP2k8yppgfdKg+CxWeYfHTbzLBuyBqJ9UVAR_vaQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.02.2207310920390.6506@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
 <alpine.LRH.2.02.2207311104020.16444@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com> <CAHk-=wiC_oidYZeMD7p0E-=TAuLgrNQ86-sB99=hRqFM8fVLDQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.02.2207311542280.21273@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
 <alpine.LRH.2.02.2207311639360.21350@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com> <CAHk-=wjA8HBrVqAqAetUvwNr=hcvhfnO7oMrOAd4V8bbSqokNA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (LRH 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 31 Jul 2022, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 1:41 PM Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > -       if (!test_bit(bit, word))
> > +       if (!test_bit(bit, word)) {
> > +               smp_rmb();
> 
> Logically, I don't think that makes sense.
> 
> Maybe you're checking the buffer being up-to-date before you *write* to it?

None of the CPUs have speculative writes - so the write can't be moved 
before the "test_bit" function. So, we are only concerned about reads.

> So smp_rmb() seems entirely wrong.
> 
> I think it should consistently aim for just doing
> 
>         unsigned long state = smp_read_acquire(word);
>         if (!(state & (1 << bit)))
>                 return 0;
> 
> or whatever.
> 
> We should strive to *not* add new uses of the legacy memory barriers.
> They are garbage from last century when people didn't know better.
> 
> Then people learnt to use acquire and release, and things improved.
> Let's live in that improved world.
> 
>                  Linus

OK - I'm sending new patches that introduce the function test_bit_acquire.

Mikulas