Re: [GIT PULL rcu/next] RCU commits for 4.13

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 01:16:54PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 09:02:41PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

[ . . . ]

> > > > o	kernel/task_work.c task_work_run()
> > > > 	Seems to rely on the acquire semantics only.  This is to handle
> > > 
> > > I think this one needs the stronger semantics, the smp_mb() is just
> > > hidden in the cmpxchg() before the raw_spin_unlock_wait() ;-)
> > > 
> > > cmpxchg() sets a special value to indicate the task_work has been taken,
> > > and raw_spin_unlock_wait() must wait until the next critical section of
> > > ->pi_lock(in task_work_cancel()) could observe this, otherwise we may
> > > cancel a task_work while executing it.
> > 
> > But either way, replacing the spin_unlock_wait() with a spin_lock()
> > immediately followed by a spin_unlock() should work correctly, right?
> > 
> 
> Yep ;-) I was thinking about the case that we kept spin_unlock_wait()
> with a simpler acquire semantics, and if so, we would actually have to
> do the replace. But I saw your patchset of removing it, so it doesn't
> matter.

Well, there is a fair amount of review and testing between now and
it getting in (assuming that it in fact does get in), but I do very
much appreciate the vote of confidence!  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul