Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/locking 5/7]Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: Downgrade UNLOCK+LOCK

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 12/10, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 05:44:37PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Well, but smp_mb__before_spinlock + LOCK is not wmb... But it is not
> > the full barrier. It should guarantee that, say,
> >
> > 	CONDITION = true;		// 1
> >
> > 	// try_to_wake_up
> > 	smp_mb__before_spinlock();
> > 	spin_lock(&task->pi_lock);
> >
> > 	if (!(p->state & state))	// 2
> > 		return;
> >
> > can't race with with set_current_state() + check(CONDITION), this means
> > that 1 and 2 above must not be reordered.
> >
> > But a LOAD before before spin_lock() can leak into the critical section.
> >
> > Perhaps this should be clarified somehow, or perhaps it should actually
> > imply mb (if combined with LOCK).
>
> If we leave the implementation the same, does the following capture the
> constraints?
>
> 	Memory operations issued before the LOCK may be completed after
> 	the LOCK operation has completed.  An smp_mb__before_spinlock(),
> 	combined with a following LOCK, orders prior loads against
> 	subsequent stores

prior stores against subsequent loads ;)

Otherwise - thanks!

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/