On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 at 22:36, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The main patches here are 7 and 8 which revise wake_up_bit and
> wake_up_var respectively. They result in 3 interfaces:
> wake_up_{bit,var} includes smp_mb__after_atomic()
I actually think this is even worse than the current model, in that
now it subtle only works after atomic ops, and it's not obvious from
the name.
At least the current model, correct code looks like
do_some_atomic_op
smp_mb__after_atomic()
wake_up_{bit,var}
and the smp_mb__after_atomic() makes sense and pairs with the atomic.
So the current one may be complex, but at the same time it's also
explicit. Your changed interface is still complex, but now it's even
less obvious what is actually going on.
With your suggested interface, a plain "wake_up_{bit,var}" only works
after atomic ops, and other ops have to magically know that they
should use the _mb() version or whatever. And somebody who doesn't
understand that subtlety, and copies the code (but changes the op from
an atomic one to something else) now introduces code that looks fine,
but is really subtly wrong.
The reason for the barrier is for the serialization with the
waitqueue_active() check. Honestly, if you worry about correctness
here, I think you should leave the existing wake_up_{bit,var}() alone,
and concentrate on having helpers that do the whole "set and wake up".
IOW, I do not think you should change existing semantics, but *this*
kind of pattern:
> [PATCH 2/9] Introduce atomic_dec_and_wake_up_var().
> [PATCH 9/9] Use clear_and_wake_up_bit() where appropriate.
sounds like a good idea.
IOW, once you have a whole "atomic_dec_and_wake_up()" (skip the "_var"
- it's implied by the fact that it's an atomic_dec), *then* that
function makes for a simple-to-use model, and now the "atomic_dec(),
the smp_mb__after_atomic(), and the wake_up_var()" are all together.
For all the same reasons, it makes total sense to have
"clear_bit_and_wake()" etc.
But exposing those "three different memory barrier scenarios" as three
different helpers is the *opposite* of helpful. It keeps the current
complexity, and makes it worse by making the barrier rules even more
opaque, imho.
Linus
