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 S1755304AbbAFL6v (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 6 Jan 2015 06:58:51 -0500
Received: from mail-pa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.220.45]:38294 "EHLO
	mail-pa0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755235AbbAFL6t (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 6 Jan 2015 06:58:49 -0500
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 04:01:21 -0800
From: Kent Overstreet <kmo@daterainc.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>, Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.19-rc3
Message-ID: <20150106120121.GB26845@kmo-pixel>
References: <CA+icZUU4ALYvEq7SkUewnZytf62R0d9x+MVPvMrR0zzFf+-f3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150106094039.GI29390@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CA+icZUUcgP=nUPCOfEJrbO9OAAPLgQd8RWO-BJe+W0wi3fWiOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+icZUUThdtXkRztRxk+zEqvMwUmEQeSoR3WD3qqXW9QspBoVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150106100621.GL29390@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CA+icZUVy2rG3PwKhPTQojLEH2O8FD-0myO2sN8hQV4_+r9YNQQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150106110112.GQ29390@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20150106110730.GA25846@kmo-pixel>
 <20150106114215.GS29390@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20150106114842.GP10476@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150106114842.GP10476@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (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 Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 12:48:42PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> 
> Looking at that closure stuff, why is there an smp_mb() in
> closure_wake_up() ? Typically wakeup only needs to imply a wmb.
> 
> Also note that __closure_wake_up() starts with a fully serializing
> instruction (xchg) and thereby already implies the full barrier.

Probably no good reason, that code is pretty old :)

If I was to hazard a guess, I had my own lockless linked lists before llist.h
existed and perhaps I did it with atomic_xchg() - which was at least documented
to not imply a barrier. I suppose it should just be dropped.