[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151211141747.GC5650@linux-uzut.site>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 06:17:47 -0800
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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>
Subject: Re: FW: Commit 81a43adae3b9 (locking/mutex: Use acquire/release
semantics) causing failures on arm64 (ThunderX)
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015, Will Deacon wrote:
>I think Andrew meant the atomic_xchg_acquire at the start of osq_lock,
>as opposed to "compare and swap". In which case, it does look like
>there's a bug here because there is nothing to order the initialisation
>of the node fields with publishing of the node, whether that's
>indirectly as a result of setting the tail to the current CPU or
>directly as a result of the WRITE_ONCE.
Sorry I'm late to the party.
Duh yes this is obviously bogus, and worse I recall triggering a similar
tail initialization issue in osq_lock on some experimental work on x86,
so this is very much a point of failure. Ack.
>
>Andrew, David: does making that atomic_xchg_acquire and atomic_xchg
>fix things for you?
>
>I don't fully grok what 81a43adae3b9 has to do with any of this, so
>maybe there's another bug too.
I think this is mainly because mutex_optimistic_spin is where the stack
shows the lockup, which really translates to c55a6ffa62.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
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