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 S1752385AbbJFQHA (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 6 Oct 2015 12:07:00 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:45254 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752061AbbJFQG6 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 6 Oct 2015 12:06:58 -0400
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 18:06:50 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.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: <20151006160650.GT3604@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>
 <20150924132121.GA1814@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150924132121.GA1814@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.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 24, 2015 at 09:21:22PM +0800, Boqun Feng 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 and very helpful ;-)
> 
> > So maybe we can reduce the description in memory-barriers to this
> > 'split' program order guarantee, where a woken task must observe both
> > its own prior state and its wakee state.
>                               ^^^^^
> I think you mean "waker" here, right?

Yes.

> And the waker is not necessarily the same task who set the @cond to
> true, right? 

It should be.

> If so, I feel like it's really hard to *use* this 'split'
> program order guarantee in other places than sleep/wakeup itself. Could
> you give an example? Thank you.

It was not meant to be used in any other scenario; the 'split' PO really
is part of the whole sleep/wakeup. It does not apply to anything else.