On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:52:56 +0200 Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Commit 362a61ad6119 ("fix SMP data race in pagetable setup vs walking")
> added the following:
>
> + smp_wmb(); /* Could be smp_wmb__xxx(before|after)_spin_lock */
> +
> spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
>
> However, over the years the fence along with the comment got moved
> around the file, eventually landing in a spot where it is *NOT* followed
> by a lock acquire (or any other operation which might happen to provide
> any fence on a given arch), rendering the comment stale.
>
> ...
>
> I fully concede I could not be arsed to check if the fence is still
> needed to begin with, I ran into this while looking at something else.
> The comment puzzled me for a minute suggesting pmd_populate has an
> immediate lock acquire inside.
>
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -436,7 +436,7 @@ void pmd_install(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *pmd, pgtable_t *pte)
> * seen in-order. See the alpha page table accessors for the
> * smp_rmb() barriers in page table walking code.
> */
> - smp_wmb(); /* Could be smp_wmb__xxx(before|after)_spin_lock */
> + smp_wmb();
> pmd_populate(mm, pmd, *pte);
> *pte = NULL;
> }
It's best to document all such barriers, so the preferred patch would
be to fix the comment rather than removing it.
And if the barrier now does nothing then of course removing the thing
would be best.
So I'd suggest that the wrong comment be left there, if only to tell
developers why the barrier used to be there!
