Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/13] rcu: Add smp_mb__after_atomic() to sync_exp_work_done()

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:39:51AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> Well, if there are no objections, I will fix up the smp_mb__before_atomic()
> and smp_mb__after_atomic() pieces.

Feel free.

> I suppose that one alternative is the new variant of kerneldoc, though
> very few of these functions have comment headers, let alone kerneldoc
> headers.  Which reminds me, the question of spin_unlock_wait() and
> spin_is_locked() semantics came up a bit ago.  Here is what I believe
> to be the case.  Does this match others' expectations?
> 
> o	spin_unlock_wait() semantics:
> 
> 	1.	Any access in any critical section prior to the
> 		spin_unlock_wait() is visible to all code following
> 		(in program order) the spin_unlock_wait().
> 
> 	2.	Any access prior (in program order) to the
> 		spin_unlock_wait() is visible to any critical
> 		section following the spin_unlock_wait().
> 
> o	spin_is_locked() semantics: Half of spin_unlock_wait(),
> 	but only if it returns false:
> 
> 	1.	Any access in any critical section prior to the
> 		spin_unlock_wait() is visible to all code following
> 		(in program order) the spin_unlock_wait().

Urgh.. yes those are pain. The best advise is to not use them.

  055ce0fd1b86 ("locking/qspinlock: Add comments")