On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 11:59:57AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > Le Mon, May 20, 2024 at 04:25:33PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit : > > Good points! How about the following? > > > > // Note that cpu_curr_snapshot() picks up the target > > // CPU's current task while its runqueue is locked with > > // an smp_mb__after_spinlock(). This ensures that either > > // the grace-period kthread will see that task's read-side > > // critical section or the task will see the updater's pre-GP > > // accesses. The trailng smp_mb() in cpu_curr_snapshot() > > *trailing Good catch! > > // does not currently play a role other than simplify > > // that function's ordering semantics. If these simplified > > // ordering semantics continue to be redundant, that smp_mb() > > // might be removed. > > > > Keeping in mind that the commit's log fully lays out the troublesome > > scenario. > > Yep, looks very good! > > Thanks! Very good, I will fold this in on my next rebase. Thanx, Paul
