Hi Paul, On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 03:31:23PM +0000, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 05:37:43PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote: > > @@ -68,7 +72,12 @@ void mcs_spin_unlock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node) > > while (!(next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next))) > > arch_mutex_cpu_relax(); > > } > > - ACCESS_ONCE(next->locked) = 1; > > - smp_wmb(); > > + /* > > + * Pass lock to next waiter. > > + * smp_store_release() provides a memory barrier to ensure > > + * all operations in the critical section has been completed > > + * before unlocking. > > + */ > > + smp_store_release(&next->locked, 1); > > However, there is one problem with this that I missed yesterday. > > Documentation/memory-barriers.txt requires that an unlock-lock pair > provide a full barrier, but this is not guaranteed if we use > smp_store_release() for unlock and smp_load_acquire() for lock. > At least one of these needs a full memory barrier. Hmm, so in the following case: Access A unlock() /* release semantics */ lock() /* acquire semantics */ Access B A cannot pass beyond the unlock() and B cannot pass the before the lock(). I agree that accesses between the unlock and the lock can be move across both A and B, but that doesn't seem to matter by my reading of the above. What is the problematic scenario you have in mind? Are you thinking of the lock() moving before the unlock()? That's only permitted by RCpc afaiu, which I don't think any architectures supported by Linux implement... (ARMv8 acquire/release is RCsc). Will -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>