Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-185022-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 06:38:15 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@amd.com>,
	Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
	Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com>, rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rcu/tasks: Further comment ordering around current
 task snapshot on TASK-TRACE
Message-ID: <b3018a43-02af-47f9-b7e9-a639dfd026f5@paulmck-laptop>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20240517152303.19689-1-frederic@kernel.org>
 <20240517152303.19689-3-frederic@kernel.org>
 <adf836b2-c660-4dc5-82dd-55d18596c803@paulmck-laptop>
 <Zku1kDj_LjK3WxaA@pavilion.home>
 <24467166-5f00-45f2-867f-40b8a836d085@paulmck-laptop>
 <ZkxwnZacvXqfHxZD@localhost.localdomain>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <ZkxwnZacvXqfHxZD@localhost.localdomain>

On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 11:59:57AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Le Mon, May 20, 2024 at 04:25:33PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney a ?crit :
> > Good points!  How about the following?
> > 
> > 		// Note that cpu_curr_snapshot() picks up the target
> > 		// CPU's current task while its runqueue is locked with
> > 		// an smp_mb__after_spinlock().  This ensures that either
> > 		// the grace-period kthread will see that task's read-side
> > 		// critical section or the task will see the updater's pre-GP
> > 		// accesses.  The trailng smp_mb() in cpu_curr_snapshot()
> 
> *trailing

Good catch!

> > 		// does not currently play a role other than simplify
> > 		// that function's ordering semantics.  If these simplified
> > 		// ordering semantics continue to be redundant, that smp_mb()
> > 		// might be removed.
> > 
> > Keeping in mind that the commit's log fully lays out the troublesome
> > scenario.
> 
> Yep, looks very good!
> 
> Thanks!

Very good, I will fold this in on my next rebase.

							Thanx, Paul