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 S1752442AbbKPQFG (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 16 Nov 2015 11:05:06 -0500
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:38592 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751824AbbKPQFC (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 16 Nov 2015 11:05:02 -0500
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:04:45 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire()
Message-ID: <20151116160445.GK11639@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20151102132901.157178466@infradead.org>
 <20151102134941.005198372@infradead.org>
 <20151103175958.GA4800@redhat.com>
 <20151111093939.GA6314@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com>
 <20151111121232.GN17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20151111193953.GA23515@redhat.com>
 <20151112070915.GC6314@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com>
 <CA+55aFxr4JX8XEF12qCOjbj1r92w8yuHZ0vbUm9jgvY167Svsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151116155658.GW17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151116155658.GW17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
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 Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 04:56:58PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:21:39AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Now, the point of spin_unlock_wait() (and "spin_is_locked()") should
> > generally be that you have some external ordering guarantee that
> > guarantees that the lock has been taken. For example, for the IPC
> > semaphores, we do either one of:
> > 
> >  (a) get large lock, then - once you hold that lock - wait for each small lock
> > 
> > or
> > 
> >  (b) get small lock, then - once you hold that lock - check that the
> > largo lock is unlocked
> > 
> > and that's the case we should really worry about.  The other uses of
> > spin_unlock_wait() should have similar "I have other reasons to know
> > I've seen that the lock was taken, or will never be taken after this
> > because XYZ".
> 
> I don't think this is true for the usage in do_exit(), we have no
> knowledge on if pi_lock is taken or not. We just want to make sure that
> _if_ it were taken, we wait until it is released.

And unless PPC would move to using RCsc locks with a SYNC in
spin_lock(), I don't think it makes sense to add
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() to all tsk->pi_lock instances to fix this.
As that is far more expensive than flipping the exit path to do
spin_lock()+spin_unlock().