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 S932117AbbKLShG (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:37:06 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58837 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S932076AbbKLShC (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:37:02 -0500
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:33:02 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, mingo@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        corbet@lwn.net, mhocko@kernel.org, dhowells@redhat.com,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, will.deacon@arm.com,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire()
Message-ID: <20151112193302.GA9988@redhat.com>
References: <20151102134941.005198372@infradead.org> <20151103175958.GA4800@redhat.com> <20151111093939.GA6314@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com> <20151111121232.GN17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20151111193953.GA23515@redhat.com> <20151112070915.GC6314@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com> <20151112150058.GA30321@redhat.com> <20151112151839.GE6314@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com> <20151112183807.GA7538@redhat.com> <20151112180203.GF17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151112180203.GF17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 11/12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:38:07PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > It seems that PPC needs to define smp_mb__before_spinlock() as full mb(),
> > no?
>
> It does:
>
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h:#define smp_mb__before_spinlock() smp_mb()

Ah, indeed, thanks.

And given that it also defines smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() as smp_mb(),
I am starting to understand how it can help to avoid the races with
spin_unlock_wait() in (for example) do_exit().

But as Boqun has already mentioned, this means that mb__after_unlock_lock()
has the new meaning which should be documented.

Hmm. And 12d560f4 "Privatize smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()" should be reverted
then ;)

Oleg.