[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151211134803.GP6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 14:48:03 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: Andrew Pinski <andrew.pinski@...iumnetworks.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, david.daney@...ium.com
Subject: Re: FW: Commit 81a43adae3b9 (locking/mutex: Use acquire/release
semantics) causing failures on arm64 (ThunderX)
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 01:33:14PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 01:26:47PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > While we're there, the acquire in osq_wait_next() seems somewhat ill
> > documented too.
> >
> > I _think_ we need ACQUIRE semantics there because we want to strictly
> > order the lock-unqueue A,B,C steps and we get that with:
> >
> > A: SC
> > B: ACQ
> > C: Relaxed
> >
> > Similarly for unlock we want the WRITE_ONCE to happen after
> > osq_wait_next, but in that case we can even rely on the control
> > dependency there.
>
> Even for the lock-unqueue case, isn't B->C ordered by a control dependency
> because C consists only of stores?
Hmm, indeed. So we could go fully relaxed on it I suppose, since the
same is true for the unlock site.
--
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