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 S932887AbcE3In6 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 30 May 2016 04:43:58 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:48133 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932691AbcE3In5 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 30 May 2016 04:43:57 -0400
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 10:43:46 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@breakpoint.cc>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Darren Hart <darren@dvhart.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@googlemail.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>, Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>,
        "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com>,
        Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 2/7] futex: Hash private futexes per process
Message-ID: <20160530084346.GM3192@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20160505204230.932454245@linutronix.de>
 <20160505204353.973009518@linutronix.de>
 <20160519122148.GZ3192@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160527165211.GB28561@breakpoint.cc>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20160527165211.GB28561@breakpoint.cc>
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 Fri, May 27, 2016 at 06:52:11PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2016-05-19 14:21:48 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > +static void futex_populate_hash(unsigned int hash_bits)
> > > +{
> …
> > > +	raw_spin_lock(&mm->futex_hash.lock);
> > > +	/* We might have raced with another task allocating the hash. */
> > > +	if (!mm->futex_hash.hash) {
> > > +		mm->futex_hash.hash_bits = hash_bits;
> > > +		/*
> > > +		 * Ensure that the above is visible before we store
> > > +		 * the pointer.
> > > +		 */
> > > +		smp_wmb(); /* (A0) Pairs with (B) */
> > > +		mm->futex_hash.hash = hb;
> > 
> > 		smp_store_release(&mm->futex_hash.hash, hb); ?
> 
> just to be clear: You suggest to use "smp_store_release()" instead
> smp_wmb() followed by the assignment?

Yes, smp_store_release() is the most natural way to publish things like
this. Note that rcu_assign_pointer() also switched to using that. See
commit: 88c1863066cc ("rcu: Define rcu_assign_pointer() in terms of
smp_store_release()") for detail on the difference.