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

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:21:39AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Now, the point of spin_unlock_wait() (and "spin_is_locked()") should
> generally be that you have some external ordering guarantee that
> guarantees that the lock has been taken. For example, for the IPC
> semaphores, we do either one of:
> 
>  (a) get large lock, then - once you hold that lock - wait for each small lock
> 
> or
> 
>  (b) get small lock, then - once you hold that lock - check that the
> largo lock is unlocked
> 
> and that's the case we should really worry about.  The other uses of
> spin_unlock_wait() should have similar "I have other reasons to know
> I've seen that the lock was taken, or will never be taken after this
> because XYZ".

I don't think this is true for the usage in do_exit(), we have no
knowledge on if pi_lock is taken or not. We just want to make sure that
_if_ it were taken, we wait until it is released.

But I'm not sure where task_work_run() sits, at first reading it appears
to also not be true -- there doesn't appear to be a reason we know a
lock to be held.

It does however appear true for the usage in completion_done(), where by
having tested x->done, we know a pi_lock _was_ held.

--
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/