[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160602144424.GV3193@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 16:44:24 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
manfred@...orfullife.com, dave@...olabs.net,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, will.deacon@....com,
Waiman.Long@....com, tj@...nel.org, pablo@...filter.org,
kaber@...sh.net, davem@...emloft.net, oleg@...hat.com,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, sasha.levin@...cle.com,
hofrat@...dl.org, jejb@...isc-linux.org, chris@...kel.net,
rth@...ddle.net, dhowells@...hat.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
mpe@...erman.id.au, ralf@...ux-mips.org, linux@...linux.org.uk,
rkuo@...eaurora.org, vgupta@...opsys.com, james.hogan@...tec.com,
realmz6@...il.com, ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp, tony.luck@...el.com,
cmetcalf@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 5/7] locking, arch: Update spin_unlock_wait()
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 10:24:40PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 01:52:02PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> About spin_unlock_wait() on ppc, I actually have a fix pending review:
>
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1461130033-70898-1-git-send-email-boqun.feng@gmail.com
Please use the normal commit quoting style:
d86b8da04dfa ("arm64: spinlock: serialise spin_unlock_wait against concurrent lockers")
> that patch fixed a different problem when people want to pair a
> spin_unlock_wait() with a spin_lock().
Argh, indeed, and I think qspinlock is still broken there :/ But my poor
brain is about to give in for the day.
Let me go ponder that some :/
> I think we still need that fix, and there are two conflicts with this
> series:
>
> 1. arch_spin_unlock_wait() code for PPC32 was deleted, and
> consolidated into one.
Nice.
> 2. I actually downgraded spin_unlock_wait() to !ACQUIRE ;-)
Fail ;-)
> I can think of two ways to solve thoes conflicts:
>
> 1. Modify my patch to make spin_unlock_wait() an ACQUIRE, and it
> can be merged in powerpc tree, and possible go into to mainline
> before 4.7. Then there is no need for this series to have code
> for ppc, therefore no conflict.
Hardly any other unlock_wait is an acquire, everyone is 'broken' :-/
> or
>
> 2. I can rebase my patch on this series, and it can be added in
> this series, and will go into mainline at 4.8.
>
>
> Michael and Peter, any thought?
I'm fine with it going in early, I can rebase, no problem.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists