On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 10:19:29AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 05:01:16PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

quoted

There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics,
and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock
pair.  This commit therefore removes spin_unlock_wait() and related
definitions from core code.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <redacted>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <redacted>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
---
 include/asm-generic/qspinlock.h |  14 -----
 include/linux/spinlock.h        |  31 -----------
 include/linux/spinlock_up.h     |   6 ---
 kernel/locking/qspinlock.c      | 117 ----------------------------------------
 4 files changed, 168 deletions(-)

[...]

quoted

diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
index b2caec7315af..64a9051e4c2c 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c

@@ -267,123 +267,6 @@ static __always_inline u32  __pv_wait_head_or_lock(struct qspinlock *lock,
 #define queued_spin_lock_slowpath	native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
 #endif
 
-/*
- * Various notes on spin_is_locked() and spin_unlock_wait(), which are
- * 'interesting' functions:
- *
- * PROBLEM: some architectures have an interesting issue with atomic ACQUIRE
- * operations in that the ACQUIRE applies to the LOAD _not_ the STORE (ARM64,
- * PPC). Also qspinlock has a similar issue per construction, the setting of
- * the locked byte can be unordered acquiring the lock proper.
- *
- * This gets to be 'interesting' in the following cases, where the /should/s
- * end up false because of this issue.
- *
- *
- * CASE 1:
- *
- * So the spin_is_locked() correctness issue comes from something like:
- *
- *   CPU0				CPU1
- *
- *   global_lock();			local_lock(i)
- *     spin_lock(&G)			  spin_lock(&L[i])
- *     for (i)				  if (!spin_is_locked(&G)) {
- *       spin_unlock_wait(&L[i]);	    smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep();
- *					    return;
- *					  }
- *					  // deal with fail
- *
- * Where it is important CPU1 sees G locked or CPU0 sees L[i] locked such
- * that there is exclusion between the two critical sections.
- *
- * The load from spin_is_locked(&G) /should/ be constrained by the ACQUIRE from
- * spin_lock(&L[i]), and similarly the load(s) from spin_unlock_wait(&L[i])
- * /should/ be constrained by the ACQUIRE from spin_lock(&G).
- *
- * Similarly, later stuff is constrained by the ACQUIRE from CTRL+RMB.

Might be worth keeping this comment about spin_is_locked, since we're not
removing that guy just yet!

Ah, all the examples had spin_unlock_wait() in them.  So what I need to
do is to create a spin_unlock_wait()-free example to illustrate the
text starting with "The load from spin_is_locked(", correct?

I also need to check all uses of spin_is_locked().  There might no
longer be any that rely on any particular ordering...

								Thanx, Paul