From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752053AbbIQREJ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 17 Sep 2015 13:04:09 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51769 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751811AbbIQREH (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 17 Sep 2015 13:04:07 -0400
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 19:01:11 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Remove misleading examples of the
	barriers in wake_*()
Message-ID: <20150917170111.GA29215@redhat.com>
References: <1441674841-11498-1-git-send-email-boqun.feng@gmail.com> <20150909192822.GM4029@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150910021612.GC18494@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com> <20150910175557.GA20640@redhat.com> <20150917130125.GL3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150917130125.GL3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 09/17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Included in it are some of the details on this subject, because a wakeup
> has two prior states that are of importance, the tasks own prior state
> and the wakeup state, both should be considered in the 'program order'
> flow.

Great. Just one question,

> + *   BLOCKING -- aka. SLEEP + WAKEUP
> + *
> + * For blocking things are a little more interesting, because when we dequeue
> + * the task, we don't need to acquire the old rq lock in order to migrate it.
> + *
> + * Say CPU0 does a wait_event() and CPU1 does the wake() and migrates the task
> + * to CPU2 (the most complex example):
> + *
> + *   CPU0 (schedule)  CPU1 (try_to_wake_up) CPU2 (sched_ttwu_pending)
> + *
> + *   X->state = UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> + *   MB
> + *   if (cond)
> + *     break
> + *                    cond = true
> + *
> + *   WMB              WMB (aka smp_mb__before_spinlock)

Yes, both CPU's do WMB-aka-smp_mb__before_spinlock...

But afaics in this particular case we do not really need them?
So perhaps we should not even mention them?

Because (if I am right) this can confuse the reader who will try
to understand how/where do we rely on these barriers.

Oleg.