[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160811183106.GA18261@linux-80c1.suse>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 11:31:06 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Susanne Spraul <1vier1@....de>, parri.andrea@...il.com
Subject: Re: spin_lock implicit/explicit memory barrier
On Thu, 11 Aug 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 04:29:22PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
>> (1) As Manfred suggested, have a patch 1 that fixes the race against mainline
>> with the redundant smp_rmb, then apply a second patch that gets rid of it
>> for mainline, but only backport the original patch 1 down to 3.12.
>
>I have not followed the thread closely, but this seems like the best
>option. Esp. since 726328d92a42 ("locking/spinlock, arch: Update and fix
>spin_unlock_wait() implementations") is incomplete, it relies on at
>least 6262db7c088b ("powerpc/spinlock: Fix spin_unlock_wait()") to sort
>PPC.
Yeah, and we'd also need the arm bits; which reminds me, aren't alpha
ldl_l/stl_c sequences also exposed to this delaying of the publishing
when a non-owner peeks at the lock? Right now sysv sem's would be busted
when doing either is_locked or unlock_wait, shouldn't these be pimped up
to full smp_mb()s?
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists