On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 06:40:04AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[snip]
> 
> I cannot resist suggesting that any lock that interacts with
> spin_unlock_wait() must have all relevant acquisitions followed by
> smp_mb__after_unlock_lock().
> 

But

1.	This would expand the purpose of smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(),
	right? smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() is for making UNLOCK-LOCK
	pair global transitive rather than guaranteeing no operations
	can be reorder before the STORE part of LOCK/ACQUIRE.

2.	If ARM64 has the same problem as PPC now,
	smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() can't help, as it's a no-op on
	ARM64.

Regards,
Boqun