[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150213154002.GB9535@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:40:02 +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, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 02/13, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> >
> > @@ -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.
Not that I think you should do this in v5, so please ignore.
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