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 S1752909AbbJFQYb (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 6 Oct 2015 12:24:31 -0400
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:35136 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752777AbbJFQY1 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 6 Oct 2015 12:24:27 -0400
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 18:24:23 +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: <20151006162423.GH11639@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>
 <20150918064956.GQ3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20150921174611.GA28059@redhat.com>
 <20151006160450.GS3604@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151006160450.GS3604@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
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 Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 06:04:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 07:46:11PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 09/18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > the text is correct, right?
> > 
> > Yes, it looks good to me and helpful.
> > 
> > But damn. I forgot why exactly try_to_wake_up() needs rmb() after
> > ->on_cpu check... It looks reasonable in any case, but I do not
> > see any strong reason immediately.
> 
> I read it like the smp_rmb() we have for
> acquire__after_spin_is_unlocked. Except, as you note below, we need to
> need an smp_read_barrier_depends for control barriers as well....

> Yes, but I'm not sure we should go write:
> 
> 	while (READ_ONCE_CTRL(p->on_cpu))
> 		cpu_relax();
> 
> Or:
> 
> 	while (p->on_cpu)
> 		cpu_relax();
> 
> 	smp_read_barrier_depends();
> 
> It seems to me that doing the smp_mb() (for Alpha) inside the loop might
> be sub-optimal.

And also referring to:

  lkml.kernel.org/r/20150812133109.GA8266@redhat.com

Do we want something like this?

#define smp_spin_acquire(cond) do {		\
	while (cond)				\
		cpu_relax();			\
	smp_read_barrier_depends(); /* ctrl */	\
	smp_rmb(); /* ctrl + rmb := acquire */	\
} while (0)

And use it like:

	smp_spin_acquire(raw_spin_is_locked(&task->pi_lock));

That might work for your task_work_run() and the scheduler case,
although it might be somewhat awkward for sem_wait_array().