From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752324AbbIRGzW (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 18 Sep 2015 02:55:22 -0400
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:40470 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751056AbbIRGzV (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 18 Sep 2015 02:55:21 -0400
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 08:49:56 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Remove misleading examples of the
 barriers in wake_*()
Message-ID: <20150918064956.GQ3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1441674841-11498-1-git-send-email-boqun.feng@gmail.com>
 <20150909192822.GM4029@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20150910021612.GC18494@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com>
 <20150910175557.GA20640@redhat.com>
 <20150917130125.GL3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20150917170111.GA29215@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150917170111.GA29215@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 07:01:11PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > Included in it are some of the details on this subject, because a wakeup
> > has two prior states that are of importance, the tasks own prior state
> > and the wakeup state, both should be considered in the 'program order'
> > flow.
> 
> Great. Just one question,
> 
> > + *   BLOCKING -- aka. SLEEP + WAKEUP
> > + *
> > + * For blocking things are a little more interesting, because when we dequeue
> > + * the task, we don't need to acquire the old rq lock in order to migrate it.
> > + *
> > + * Say CPU0 does a wait_event() and CPU1 does the wake() and migrates the task
> > + * to CPU2 (the most complex example):
> > + *
> > + *   CPU0 (schedule)  CPU1 (try_to_wake_up) CPU2 (sched_ttwu_pending)
> > + *
> > + *   X->state = UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> > + *   MB
> > + *   if (cond)
> > + *     break
> > + *                    cond = true
> > + *
> > + *   WMB              WMB (aka smp_mb__before_spinlock)
> 
> Yes, both CPU's do WMB-aka-smp_mb__before_spinlock...
> 
> But afaics in this particular case we do not really need them?
> So perhaps we should not even mention them?
> 
> Because (if I am right) this can confuse the reader who will try
> to understand how/where do we rely on these barriers.

Good point. Initially I put all barriers in, but now that we've figured
out which are important (the text is correct, right? please double
check) we can remove the rest.