Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire()

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 11/11, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 05:39:40PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
>
> > Just be curious, should spin_unlock_wait() semantically be an ACQUIRE?
>
> I did wonder the same thing, it would simplify a number of things if
> this were so.

Yes, me too.

Sometimes I even think it should have both ACQUIRE + RELEASE semantics.
IOW, it should be "equivalent" to spin_lock() + spin_unlock().

Consider this code:

	object_t *object;
	spinlock_t lock;

	void update(void)
	{
		object_t *o;

		spin_lock(&lock);
		o = READ_ONCE(object);
		if (o) {
			BUG_ON(o->dead);
			do_something(o);
		}
		spin_unlock(&lock);
	}

	void destroy(void) // can be called only once, can't race with itself
	{
		object_t *o;

		o = object;
		object = NULL;

		/*
		 * pairs with lock/ACQUIRE. The next update() must see
		 * object == NULL after spin_lock();
		 */
		smp_mb();

		spin_unlock_wait(&lock);

		/*
		 * pairs with unlock/RELEASE. The previous update() has
		 * already passed BUG_ON(o->dead).
		 *
		 * (Yes, yes, in this particular case it is not needed,
		 *  we can rely on the control dependency).
		 */
		smp_mb();

		o->dead = true;
	}

I believe the code above is correct and it needs the barriers on both sides.

If it is wrong, then task_work_run() is buggy: it relies on mb() implied by
cmpxchg() before spin_unlock_wait() the same way: the next task_work_cancel()
should see the result of our cmpxchg(), it must not try to read work->next or
work->func.

Hmm. Not sure I really understand what I am trying to say... Perhaps in fact
I mean that unlock_wait() should be removed because it is too subtle for me ;)

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/