[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150213153228.GA9535@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:32:28 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
peterz@...radead.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, waiman.long@...com, davej@...hat.com,
x86@...nel.org, jeremy@...p.org, paul.gortmaker@...driver.com,
ak@...ux.intel.com, jasowang@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, riel@...hat.com,
borntraeger@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
a.ryabinin@...sung.com, sasha.levin@...cle.com, dave@...olabs.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] x86 spinlock: Fix memory corruption on completing
completions
On 02/13, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>
> @@ -164,7 +161,7 @@ static inline int arch_spin_is_locked(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
> {
> struct __raw_tickets tmp = READ_ONCE(lock->tickets);
>
> - return tmp.tail != tmp.head;
> + return tmp.tail != (tmp.head & ~TICKET_SLOWPATH_FLAG);
> }
Well, this can probably use __tickets_equal() too. But this is cosmetic.
It seems that arch_spin_is_contended() should be fixed with this change,
(__ticket_t)(tmp.tail - tmp.head) > TICKET_LOCK_INC
can be true because of TICKET_SLOWPATH_FLAG in .head, even if it is actually
unlocked. And the "(__ticket_t)" typecast looks unnecessary, it only adds more
confusuin, but this is cosmetic too.
> @@ -772,7 +773,8 @@ __visible void kvm_lock_spinning(struct arch_spinlock *lock, __ticket_t want)
> * check again make sure it didn't become free while
> * we weren't looking.
> */
> - if (ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets.head) == want) {
> + head = READ_ONCE(lock->tickets.head);
> + if (__tickets_equal(head, want)) {
> add_stats(TAKEN_SLOW_PICKUP, 1);
> goto out;
This is off-topic, but with or without this change perhaps it makes sense
to add smp_mb__after_atomic(). It is nop on x86, just to make this code
more understandable for those (for me ;) who can never remember even the
x86 rules.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists