Re: [GIT PULL rcu/next] RCU commits for 4.13

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 12:38:48PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> [turns out I've not been on cc for this thread, but Jade pointed me to it
>  and I see my name came up at some point!]

My bad for not having you Cc: on the original patch, apologies!

> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 05:05:46PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Linus, are you dead-set against defining spin_unlock_wait() to be
> > > spin_lock + spin_unlock?  For example, is the current x86 implementation
> > > of spin_unlock_wait() really a non-negotiable hard requirement?  Or
> > > would you be willing to live with the spin_lock + spin_unlock semantics?
> > 
> > So I think the "same as spin_lock + spin_unlock" semantics are kind of insane.
> > 
> > One of the issues is that the same as "spin_lock + spin_unlock" is
> > basically now architecture-dependent. Is it really the
> > architecture-dependent ordering you want to define this as?
> > 
> > So I just think it's a *bad* definition. If somebody wants something
> > that is exactly equivalent to spin_lock+spin_unlock, then dammit, just
> > do *THAT*. It's completely pointless to me to define
> > spin_unlock_wait() in those terms.
> > 
> > And if it's not equivalent to the *architecture* behavior of
> > spin_lock+spin_unlock, then I think it should be descibed in terms
> > that aren't about the architecture implementation (so you shouldn't
> > describe it as "spin_lock+spin_unlock", you should describe it in
> > terms of memory barrier semantics.
> > 
> > And if we really have to use the spin_lock+spinunlock semantics for
> > this, then what is the advantage of spin_unlock_wait at all, if it
> > doesn't fundamentally avoid some locking overhead of just taking the
> > spinlock in the first place?
> 
> Just on this point -- the arm64 code provides the same ordering semantics
> as you would get from a lock;unlock sequence, but we can optimise that
> when compared to an actual lock;unlock sequence because we don't need to
> wait in turn for our ticket. I suspect something similar could be done
> if/when we move to qspinlocks.
> 
> Whether or not this is actually worth optimising is another question, but
> it is worth noting that unlock_wait can be implemented more cheaply than
> lock;unlock, whilst providing the same ordering guarantees (if that's
> really what we want -- see my reply to Paul).
> 
> Simplicity tends to be my preference, so ripping this out would suit me
> best ;)

Creating the series to do just that, with you on Cc this time!

						Thanx, Paul