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 S1755603AbcIAVBM (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 1 Sep 2016 17:01:12 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:56851 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752700AbcIAVBK (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 1 Sep 2016 17:01:10 -0400
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 21:08:58 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/wait: avoid abort_exclusive_wait() in
 __wait_on_bit_lock()
Message-ID: <20160901190858.GI10168@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20160826124453.GA28894@redhat.com>
 <20160826124552.GB28904@redhat.com>
 <20160901190141.GJ10138@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160901190141.GJ10138@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 09:01:41PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > test_and_set_bit() implies mb() so
> > the lockless list_empty_careful() case is fine, we can not miss the
> > condition if we race with unlock_page().
> 
> You're talking about this ordering?:
> 
> 	finish_wait()			clear_bit_unlock();
> 	  list_empty_careful()
> 
> 	/* MB implied */		smp_mb__after_atomic();
> 	test_and_set_bit()		wake_up_page()
> 					  ...
> 					    autoremove_wake_function()
> 					      list_del_init();
> 
> 
> That could do with spelling out I feel.. :-)

This ^^^

> > I am not sure we even want to conditionalize both finish_wait()'s,
> > we could simply call it unconditionally and once before test_and_set(),
> > the spurious wakeup is unlikely case.
> 
> 
> 	ret = 0;
> 
> 	for (;;) {
> 		prepare_to_wait_exclusive(wq, &q->wait, mode);
> 
> 		if (test_bit(&q->key.bit_nr, &q->key.flag))
> 			ret = action(&q->key, mode);
> 
> 		if (!test_and_set_bit(&q->key.bit_nr, &q->key.flag)) {
> 			/* we got the lock anyway, ignore the signal */
> 			ret = 0;
> 			break;
> 		}
> 
> 		if (ret)
> 			break;
> 	}
> 	finish_wait(wq, &q->wait);
> 
> 	return ret;
> 
> 
> Would not that work too?

Nope, because we need to do that finish_wait() before
test_and_set_bit()..

Also the problem with doing finish_wait() unconditionally would be
destroying the FIFO order. With a bit of bad luck you'd get starvation
cases :/