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 S1753704AbbJGLB1 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 7 Oct 2015 07:01:27 -0400
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:54749 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753666AbbJGLBZ (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 7 Oct 2015 07:01:25 -0400
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 13:01:20 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, josh@joshtriplett.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, dvhart@linux.intel.com,
        fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com,
        bobby prani <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/18] rcu: Move rcu_report_exp_rnp() to
 allow consolidation
Message-ID: <20151007110120.GE17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20151006162907.GA12020@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1444148977-14108-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1444148977-14108-2-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20151006202937.GX3604@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20151006205850.GW3910@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20151007075114.GW2881@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <941567906.21756.1444207325021.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <941567906.21756.1444207325021.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 08:42:05AM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Oct 7, 2015, at 3:51 AM, Peter Zijlstra peterz@infradead.org wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:58:50PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 10:29:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:29:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > > +static void __maybe_unused rcu_report_exp_rnp(struct rcu_state *rsp,
> >> > > +					      struct rcu_node *rnp, bool wake)
> >> > > +{
> >> > > +	unsigned long flags;
> >> > > +	unsigned long mask;
> >> > > +
> >> > > +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
> >> > 
> >> > Normally we require a comment with barriers, explaining the order and
> >> > the pairing etc.. :-)
> >> > 
> >> > > +	smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
> >> 
> >> Hmmmm...  That is not good.
> >> 
> >> Worse yet, I am missing comments on most of the pre-existing barriers
> >> of this form.
> > 
> > Yes I noticed.. :/
> > 
> >> The purpose is to enforce the heavy-weight grace-period memory-ordering
> >> guarantees documented in the synchronize_sched() header comment and
> >> elsewhere.
> > 
> >> They pair with anything you might use to check for violation
> >> of these guarantees, or, simiarly, any ordering that you might use when
> >> relying on these guarantees.
> > 
> > I'm sure you know what that means, but I've no clue ;-) That is, I
> > wouldn't know where to start looking in the RCU implementation to verify
> > the barrier is either needed or sufficient. Unless you mean _everywhere_
> > :-)
> 
> One example is the new membarrier system call. It relies on synchronize_sched()
> to enforce this:

That again doesn't explain which UNLOCKs with non-matching lock values
it pairs with and what particular ordering is important here.

I'm fully well aware of what sync_sched() guarantees and how one can use
it, that is not the issue, what I'm saying is that a generic description
of sync_sched() doesn't help in figuring out WTH that barrier is for and
which other code I should also inspect.