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
