[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150215203159.GA8191@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 21:31:59 +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 V5] x86 spinlock: Fix memory corruption on completing
completions
On 02/15, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>
> * Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> [2015-02-15 11:25:44]:
>
> Resending the V5 with smp_mb__after_atomic() change without bumping up
> revision
Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Of course, this needs the acks from maintainers. And I agree that SLOWPATH
in .head makes xadd() in unlock() unavoidable. However I do not see how we
can avoid the locked inc if we want to eliminate read-after-unlock.
--
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