On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 12:04:57PM +0000, Justin He wrote: > > This is a combined diff - do a second patch which does only remove the > > smp_wmb(). The smp_wmb() there is not needed as the cmpxchg() already > > implies a smp_mb() so there's no need for that separate, explicit one. > > > I have a concern about what if cmpxchg failed? Do we have to still > guarantee the ordering since cmpxchg will not imply a smp_mb if it > failed. > > Besides, I didn't find the paired smp_mb or smp_rmb > for this smp_wmb. Do you have any ideas? failed cmpxchg does indeed not imply smp_mb; but in that case I can't find a store it orders against; and the comment is utterly shite since it doesn't spell out the ordering in any case. The way I read that code is that the cmpxchg effectively publishes the data and all it wants to ensure is that if the pointer is publised the object is complete -- in which case the cpmxchg() is sufficient, on success the object is published and you get the ordering, on failure the object isn't published and nobody cares about the ordering anyway. If there's anything else, the comment is in dire need of fixing anyway.
