From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <stable-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56651 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754764AbbHLNd0 (ORCPT <rfc822;stable@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:33:26 -0400
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 15:31:10 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 1vier1@web.de,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@parallels.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipc/sem.c: Update/correct memory barriers
Message-ID: <20150812133109.GA8266@redhat.com>
References: <1439142939-2605-1-git-send-email-manfred@colorfullife.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1439142939-2605-1-git-send-email-manfred@colorfullife.com>
Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <stable.vger.kernel.org>

On 08/09, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>
>  /*
> + * spin_unlock_wait() and !spin_is_locked() are not memory barriers, they
> + * are only control barriers.
> + * The code must pair with spin_unlock(&sem->lock) or
> + * spin_unlock(&sem_perm.lock), thus just the control barrier is insufficient.
> + *
> + * smp_rmb() is sufficient, as writes cannot pass the control barrier.
> + */
> +#define ipc_smp_acquire__after_spin_is_unlocked()	smp_rmb()

Agreed.



But to remind, this can have more users. In particular, task_work_run()
which currently does mb() after spin_unlock_wait().

Can someone suggest a good "generic" name for this helper so that we can
move it into include/linux/spinlock.h?

Oleg.