[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160715070925.GO30154@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:09:25 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
Cc: Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] locking/pvqspinlock: restore/set vcpu_hashed state
after failing adaptive locking spinning
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 05:26:40AM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> 2016-07-14 22:52 GMT+08:00 Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>:
> [...]
> > As pv_kick_node() is called immediately after designating the next node as
> > the queue head, the chance of this racing is possible, but is not likely
> > unless the lock holder vCPU gets preempted for a long time at that right
> > moment. This change does not do any harm though, so I am OK with that.
> > However, I do want you to add a comment about the possible race in the code
> > as it isn't that obvious or likely.
>
> How about something like:
>
> /*
> * If the lock holder vCPU gets preempted for a long time, pv_kick_node will
> * advance its state and hash the lock, restore/set the vcpu_hashed state to
> * avoid the race.
> */
So I'm not sure. Yes it was a bug, but its fairly 'obvious' it should be
vcpu_hashed, we did after all hash the thing.
> Btw, do you think patch title should be improved, what do you like?
I changed it to: "locking/pvqspinlock: Fix double hash race"
Powered by blists - more mailing lists