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;
Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley
        Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United
        Kingdom.
        Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
From:   David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20221226103309.953112-3-houtao@huaweicloud.com>
References: <20221226103309.953112-3-houtao@huaweicloud.com> <20221226103309.953112-1-houtao@huaweicloud.com>
To:     Hou Tao <houtao@huaweicloud.com>
Cc:     dhowells@redhat.com, linux-cachefs@redhat.com,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>, linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com>, houtao1@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] fscache: Add the missing smp_mb__after_atomic() before wake_up_bit()
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2431993.1673453386.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 11 Jan 2023 16:09:46 +0000
Message-ID: <2431994.1673453386@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

Hou Tao <houtao@huaweicloud.com> wrote:

> fscache_create_volume_work() uses wake_up_bit() to wake up the processes
> which are waiting for the completion of volume creation. According to
> comments in wake_up_bit() and waitqueue_active(), an extra smp_mb() is
> needed to guarantee the memory order between FSCACHE_VOLUME_CREATING
> flag and waitqueue_active() before invoking wake_up_bit().

What two values are you ordering?

If we're using this to create a critical section, then yes, we would need a
barrier to order the changes inside the critical section before changing the
memory location that forms the lock - but this is not a critical section.

David