Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1214772
| From | Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: wake_up_process implied memory barrier clarification |
| Date | 2015-08-27 20:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q2a5X-41H-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <q24tA-4lT-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <q24MY-4IH-43@gated-at.bofh.it> <q25fY-5vZ-39@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 08/27, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> @@ -2031,6 +2031,9 @@ something up. The barrier occurs before the task state is cleared, and so sits
> <general barrier> STORE current->state
> LOAD event_indicated
>
> +Please note that wake_up_process is an exception here because it implies
> +the write memory barrier unconditionally.
> +
I simply can't understand (can't even parse) this part of memory-barriers.txt.
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -1967,8 +1967,7 @@ static void try_to_wake_up_local(struct task_struct *p)
> *
> * Return: 1 if the process was woken up, 0 if it was already running.
> *
> - * It may be assumed that this function implies a write memory barrier before
> - * changing the task state if and only if any tasks are woken up.
> + * It may be assumed that this function implies a write memory barrier.
> */
I won't argue, technically this is correct of course. And I agree that
the old comment is misleading.
But the new comment looks as if it is fine to avoid wmb() if you do
wake_up_process(). Say,
void w(void)
{
A = 1;
wake_up_process(something_unrelated);
// we know that it implies wmb().
B = 1;
}
void r(void)
{
int a, b;
b = B;
rmb();
a = A;
BUG_ON(b && !a);
}
Perhaps this part of the comment should be simply removed, the unconditional
wmb() in ttwu() is just implementation detail. And note that initially the
documented behaviour of smp_mb__before_spinlock() was only the STORE - LOAD
serialization. Then people noticed that it actually does wmb() and started
to rely on this fact.
To me, this comment should just explain that this function implies a barrier
but only in a sense that you do not need another one after CONDITION = T and
before wake_up_process().
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
wake_up_process implied memory barrier clarification Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-08-27 14:30 +0200
Re: wake_up_process implied memory barrier clarification Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-08-27 14:50 +0200
Re: wake_up_process implied memory barrier clarification Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-08-27 15:20 +0200
Re: wake_up_process implied memory barrier clarification Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-08-27 20:30 +0200
Re: wake_up_process implied memory barrier clarification Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-08-28 17:00 +0200
Re: wake_up_process implied memory barrier clarification Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-08-28 18:10 +0200
Re: wake_up_process implied memory barrier clarification Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 11:30 +0200
Re: wake_up_process implied memory barrier clarification Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-08-29 16:40 +0200
Re: wake_up_process implied memory barrier clarification Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 02:40 +0200
Re: wake_up_process implied memory barrier clarification Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-08-31 20:40 +0200
Re: wake_up_process implied memory barrier clarification "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-08-31 22:50 +0200
Re: wake_up_process implied memory barrier clarification Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 05:50 +0200
Re: wake_up_process implied memory barrier clarification "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-09-01 06:10 +0200
Re: wake_up_process implied memory barrier clarification Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-01 12:10 +0200
Re: wake_up_process implied memory barrier clarification Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 17:00 +0200
Re: wake_up_process implied memory barrier clarification Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-01 18:50 +0200
Re: wake_up_process implied memory barrier clarification Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 03:20 +0200
Re: wake_up_process implied memory barrier clarification Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-01 11:50 +0200
csiph-web