On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 09:15:26AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 05:18:48PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 09/03, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 03:36:40PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > // Ensure that the previous __set_current_state(RUNNING) can't
> > > > // leak after spin_unlock_wait()
> > > > smp_mb();
> > > > spin_unlock_wait();
> > > > // Another mb to ensure this too can't be reordered with
> > > > unlock_wait
> > > > set_current_state(TASK_DEAD);
> > > >
> > > > What do you think looks better?
> > >
> > > spin_unlock_wait() would be a control dependency right? Therefore that
> > > store could not creep up anyhow.
> >
> > Hmm. indeed, thanks! This probably means that task_work_run() can use
> > rmb() instead of mb().
> >
> > What I can't understand is do we still need a compiler barrier or not.
> > Probably "in theory yes" ?
>
> Yes, this is where I'm forever in doubt as well. The worry is the
> compiler reordering things, but I'm not sure how it would do that in
> this case, then again, I've been shown to not be creative enough in
> these cases many times before.
>
> Paul might know, he's had much more exposure to compiler people.
Well, if we are talking about the code sequence above, spin_unlock_wait()
does reads followed by a conditional. And set_current_state() does
a write. The one thing that might be missing is that for this to work is
that Alpha might need an ACCESS_ONCE() to avoid read reordering.
(Yes, ACCESS_ONCE() is required for the other architectures to meet
the letter of the law in memory-barriers.txt, but if you know that
your particular architecture and compiler won't mess you up, you
have more freedom in your arch-specific code.)
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
