DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
         :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        b=iuZQkbULgogpd5mNLsp0tXvQLfrWlR3/laWcL3/ze/X7GCKx70q4HBSYzZNj6SGzZO
         SCnW18O0pjtLzQTfM9N7NPdZq+x2MZ/W4l24WZlD7kwDnrAcHuprjqOxGeGpCwmatPim
         mrFnXFHETH7WzgRqysvxa43WqydQu7f6nqM98=
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:30:38 -0500
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-input@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] atkbd: cancel delayed work before freeing its structure
Message-ID: <20081111112741.ZZRA012@mailhub.coreip.homeip.net>
References: <20081105153140.25132ca1@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com> <20081107154325.GD9368@redhat.com> <20081111145155.GA24881@anvil.corenet.prv> <20081111172050.GC18214@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20081111172050.GC18214@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1851
Lines: 45

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 06:20:50PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/11, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 04:43:25PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > While we are here, what is the reason for atkbd_schedule_event_work()->wmb() ?
> > > It looks absolutely bogus. Is it for atkbd_event_work() ? In that case it
> > > is not needed, it must see all previous STOREs because both queue_work() and
> > > run_workqueue() take cwq->lock. And in any case,
> > > test_and_set_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING) implies mb().
> >
> > I wanted to be sure that event_mask is set before we schedule event_work
> > and I don't want to rely on details of queue_delayed_work
> > implementation. If the fact that queue_delayed_work acts as a barrier
> > would be listed part of its published spec I would gladly remove wmb()
> > from atkbd.
> 
> Yes, queue_delayed_work() acts as a barrier for the work->func(), otherwise
> almost any code which uses wqs is broken.
> 
> But let me repeat, if queue_delayed_work() fails becuase this work is
> already queued we (in this particular case) need mb(), not wmb(). Or
> atkbd_schedule_event_work() can miss a bit in ->event_mask. So I think
> this wmb() is misleading.

Could you please explain why wmb() is not enough and full mb() is
needed in this case? I thought that if write happens before we decide
whether to schedule event_work or not it would be enough.

> And unneeded because queue_work() implies mb(),
> but this is not really documented.
> 

It would be great if we can get it documented and then i'd drop *mb()
from atkbd.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/