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

[Linus Torvalds]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/11, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Sometimes I even think it should have both ACQUIRE + RELEASE semantics.
> IOW, it should be "equivalent" to spin_lock() + spin_unlock().

That's insane.

"Release" semantics are - by definition - about stuff that *predeces* it.

It is simply not sensible to have a "wait_for_unlock()" that then
synchronizes loads or stores that happened *before* the wait. That's
some crazy voodoo programming.

And if you do need to have model where you do "store something, then
make sure that the unlock we wait for happens after the store", then
you need to just add a "smp_mb()" in between that store and the
waiting for unlock.

Or just take the damn lock, and don't play any games at all.

                   Linus
--
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/