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 S932218AbeDZPU0 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 26 Apr 2018 11:20:26 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:34372 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S932135AbeDZPUU (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 26 Apr 2018 11:20:20 -0400
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:20:00 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
Cc: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, oleg@redhat.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        mingo@kernel.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, keescook@chromium.org,
        riel@redhat.com, mhocko@suse.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, marcos.souza.org@gmail.com,
        hoeun.ryu@gmail.com, pasha.tatashin@oracle.com, gs051095@gmail.com,
        ebiederm@xmission.com, dhowells@redhat.com, rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] exit: Lockless iteration over task list in
 mm_update_next_owner()
Message-ID: <20180426152000.GB4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <152473763015.29458.1131542311542381803.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
 <152474046779.29458.5294808258041953930.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
 <20180426123542.GA819@andrea>
 <c21ad28c-cd23-2a75-6622-ba49c37137db@virtuozzo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <c21ad28c-cd23-2a75-6622-ba49c37137db@virtuozzo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.3 (2018-01-21)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 04:52:39PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> In the patch I used the logic, that the below code:
> 
> 	x = A;
> 	spin_lock();
> 	spin_unlock();
> 	spin_lock();
> 	spin_unlock();
> 	y = B;
> 
> cannot reorder much than:
> 
> 	spin_lock();
> 	x = A;		<- this can't become visible later, that spin_unlock()
> 	spin_unlock();
> 	spin_lock();
> 	y = B;		<- this can't become visible earlier, than spin_lock()
> 	spin_unlock();
> 
> Is there a problem?

The two stores will be ordered, but only at the strength of an
smp_wmb(). The above construct does not imply smp_mb(). The difference
is observable on real hardware (Power).