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 S1751404AbcBFIWU (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sat, 6 Feb 2016 03:22:20 -0500
Received: from mail-wm0-f66.google.com ([74.125.82.66]:36144 "EHLO
	mail-wm0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750718AbcBFIWT (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 6 Feb 2016 03:22:19 -0500
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2016 09:22:14 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] futex: Remove requirement for lock_page in
 get_futex_key
Message-ID: <20160206082214.GA29946@gmail.com>
References: <1454567326-16114-1-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1602041002010.25254@nanos>
 <20160204174343.GA12375@linux-uzut.site>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1602041845280.25254@nanos>
 <20160205094441.GB7551@gmail.com>
 <20160205180239.GB12375@linux-uzut.site>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160205180239.GB12375@linux-uzut.site>
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


* Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Feb 2016, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> >So I too didn't understand that sentence at first, because the capitalization
> >really throws off quick parsing of that comment, as 'MB' ususally denotes
> >megabytes.
> 
> Sure, fair enough.
> 
> >
> >So please change it to "mb(); (A)" or so - and I think all of these comments
> >should be changed to use a standard API name for the barrier they imply, as the
> >head of futex.c does:
> >
> >*   waiters++; (a)
> >*   mb(); (A) <-- paired with -.
> >*                              |
> >*   lock(hash_bucket(futex));  |
> >*                              |
> >*   uval = *futex;             |
> >*                              |        *futex = newval;
> >*                              |        sys_futex(WAKE, futex);
> >*                              |          futex_wake(futex);
> >*                              |
> >*                              `------->  mb(); (B)
> >
> >Btw., pedantic: shouldn't that be smp_mb()? Futexes don't operate on IO spaces, so
> >on UP they only need compiler barriers.
> 
> Right, but we do in fact use smp barriers in this cases in the real code, that 
> mb() is just in the comments, I guess it would be desirable to change it to 
> smp_mb nonetheless.
> 
> However, could these changes be in a followup? Mainly because the barrier B 
> references will be updated across all futex.c... unless there are still concerns 
> about this particular patch, of course.

How about doing it first in a preparatory patch? So that reviews of patches 
actually making substantial changes don't get derailed by hard to read comments 
and so.

Thanks,

	Ingo