Re: [PATCH 2/2] [PATCH] sched: Add smp_rmb() in task rq locking cycles

From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Sat Feb 21 2015 - 07:55:03 EST


On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 09:23:19PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > I think I agree with Oleg in that we only need the smp_rmb(); of course
> > that wants a somewhat elaborate comment to go along with it. How about
> > something like so:
> >
> > spin_unlock_wait(&local);
> > /*
> > * The above spin_unlock_wait() forms a control dependency with
> > * any following stores; because we must first observe the lock
> > * unlocked and we cannot speculate stores.
> > *
> > * Subsequent loads however can easily pass through the loads
> > * represented by spin_unlock_wait() and therefore we need the
> > * read barrier.
> > *
> > * This together is stronger than ACQUIRE for @local and
> > * therefore we will observe the complete prior critical section
> > * of @local.
> > */
> > smp_rmb();
> >
> > The obvious alternative is using spin_unlock_wait() with an
> > smp_load_acquire(), but that might be more expensive on some archs due
> > to repeated issuing of memory barriers.
>
> Yes, yes, thanks!
>
> But note that we need the same comment after sem_lock()->spin_is_locked().
>
> So perhaps we can add this comment into include/linux/spinlock.h ? In this
> case perhaps it makes sense to add, say,
>
> #define smp_mb__after_unlock_wait() smp_rmb()
>
> with this comment above? Another potential user task_work_run(). It could
> use rmb() too, but this again needs the same fat comment.
>
> Ehat do you think?

Sure, that works.
--
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/