From 8cd641e3c7cbf86c7cbd2a17a160dd137d86c860 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 13:08:18 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] sched/wait: Add swq_has_sleeper()
Git-commit: 8cd641e3c7cbf86c7cbd2a17a160dd137d86c860
Patch-mainline: v4.14-rc1
References: bsc#1060747

Which is the equivalent of what we have in regular waitqueues.
I'm not crazy about the name, but this also helps us get both
apis closer -- which iirc comes originally from the -net folks.

We also duplicate the comments for the lockless swait_active(),
from wait.h. Future users will make use of this interface.

Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>

---
 include/linux/swait.h | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/swait.h b/include/linux/swait.h
index 4a4e180d0a35..73e97a08d3d0 100644
--- a/include/linux/swait.h
+++ b/include/linux/swait.h
@@ -79,9 +79,63 @@ extern void __init_swait_queue_head(struct swait_queue_head *q, const char *name
 	DECLARE_SWAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(name)
 #endif
 
-static inline int swait_active(struct swait_queue_head *q)
+/**
+ * swait_active -- locklessly test for waiters on the queue
+ * @wq: the waitqueue to test for waiters
+ *
+ * returns true if the wait list is not empty
+ *
+ * NOTE: this function is lockless and requires care, incorrect usage _will_
+ * lead to sporadic and non-obvious failure.
+ *
+ * NOTE2: this function has the same above implications as regular waitqueues.
+ *
+ * Use either while holding swait_queue_head::lock or when used for wakeups
+ * with an extra smp_mb() like:
+ *
+ *      CPU0 - waker                    CPU1 - waiter
+ *
+ *                                      for (;;) {
+ *      @cond = true;                     prepare_to_swait(&wq_head, &wait, state);
+ *      smp_mb();                         // smp_mb() from set_current_state()
+ *      if (swait_active(wq_head))        if (@cond)
+ *        wake_up(wq_head);                      break;
+ *                                        schedule();
+ *                                      }
+ *                                      finish_swait(&wq_head, &wait);
+ *
+ * Because without the explicit smp_mb() it's possible for the
+ * swait_active() load to get hoisted over the @cond store such that we'll
+ * observe an empty wait list while the waiter might not observe @cond.
+ * This, in turn, can trigger missing wakeups.
+ *
+ * Also note that this 'optimization' trades a spin_lock() for an smp_mb(),
+ * which (when the lock is uncontended) are of roughly equal cost.
+ */
+static inline int swait_active(struct swait_queue_head *wq)
+{
+	return !list_empty(&wq->task_list);
+}
+
+/**
+ * swq_has_sleeper - check if there are any waiting processes
+ * @wq: the waitqueue to test for waiters
+ *
+ * Returns true if @wq has waiting processes
+ *
+ * Please refer to the comment for swait_active.
+ */
+static inline bool swq_has_sleeper(struct swait_queue_head *wq)
 {
-	return !list_empty(&q->task_list);
+	/*
+	 * We need to be sure we are in sync with the list_add()
+	 * modifications to the wait queue (task_list).
+	 *
+	 * This memory barrier should be paired with one on the
+	 * waiting side.
+	 */
+	smp_mb();
+	return swait_active(wq);
 }
 
 extern void swake_up(struct swait_queue_head *q);
-- 
2.12.0