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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <alpine.LRH.2.02.2208220530050.32093@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
 <CAHk-=wh-6RJQWxdVaZSsntyXJWJhivVX8JFH4MqkXv12AHm_=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAHk-=whfZSEc40wtq5H51JcsBdB50ctZPtM3rS3E+xUNvadLog@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whfZSEc40wtq5H51JcsBdB50ctZPtM3rS3E+xUNvadLog@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2022 14:00:41 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEXW_YTtQNTLEj9wz9ETt=6USLYO2yrJcSZ-mkiVVHj7y6Z12g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wait_on_bit: add an acquire memory barrier
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        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>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 1:39 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 10:08 AM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > So why don't we just create a "test_bit_acquire()" and be done with
> > it? We literally created clear_bit_unlock() for the opposite reason,
> > and your comments about the new barrier hack even point to it.
>
> Here's a patch that is
>
>  (a) almost entirely untested (I checked that one single case builds
> and seems to generate the expected code)
>
>  (b) needs some more loving
>
> but seems to superficially work.
>
> At a minimum this needs to be split into two (so the bitop and the
> wait_on_bit parts split up), and that whole placement of
> <asm/barrier.h> and generic_bit_test_acquire() need at least some
> thinking about, but on the whole it seems reasonable.
>
> For example, it would make more sense to have this in
> <asm-generic/bitops/lock.h>, but not all architectures include that,
> and some do their own version. I didn't want to mess with
> architecture-specific headers, so this illogically just uses
> generic-non-atomic.h.
>
> Maybe just put it in <linux/bitops.h> directly?
>
> So I'm not at all claiming that this is a great patch. It definitely
> needs more work, and a lot more testing.
>
> But I think this is at least the right _direction_ to take here.
>
> And yes, I think it also would have been better if
> "clear_bit_unlock()" would have been called "clear_bit_release()", and
> we'd have more consistent naming with our ordered atomics. But it's
> probably not worth changing.

Also, as a suggestion to Mikulas or whoever works on this - update the
ORDERING section of Documentation/atomic_bitops.txt too?

Thanks,

 - Joel