Re: spin_lock implicit/explicit memory barrier

[Manfred Spraul]

Hi Paul,

On 08/10/2016 11:00 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:17:57PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > [...]
> >    CPU0			      CPU1
> >    complex_mode = true	      spin_lock(l)
> >    smp_mb()				  <--- do we want a smp_mb() here?
> >    spin_unlock_wait(l)	      if (!smp_load_acquire(complex_mode))
> >    foo()			 foo()
> >
> > We should not be doing an smp_mb() right after a spin_lock(), makes no sense. The
> > spinlock machinery should guarantee us the barriers in the unorthodox locking cases,
> > such as this.
> In this case, from what I can see, we do need a store-load fence.
> That said, yes, it really should be smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() rather
> than smp_mb().  So if this code pattern is both desired and legitimate,
> the smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() definitions probably need to move out
> of kernel/rcu/tree.h to barrier.h or some such.
Can you explain the function name, why smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()?

I would have called it smp_mb__after_spin_lock().

For ipc/sem.c, the use case is:
[sorry, I only now notice that the mailer ate the formatting]:

 cpu 1: complex_mode_enter():
    smp_store_mb(sma->complex_mode, true);

   for (i = 0; i < sma->sem_nsems; i++) {
        sem = sma->sem_base + i;
        spin_unlock_wait(&sem->lock);
    }

cpu 2: sem_lock():
        spin_lock(&sem->lock);
        smp_mb();
        if (!smp_load_acquire(&sma->complex_mode)) {


What is forbidden is that both cpu1 and cpu2 proceed.

--
    Manfred