[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161005035755.GC32728@linux-80c1.suse>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 20:57:55 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, juri.lelli@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, xlpang@...hat.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
jdesfossez@...icios.com, bristot@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/4] futex: Use smp_store_release() in
mark_wake_futex()
On Mon, 03 Oct 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>Since the futex_q can dissapear the instruction after assigning NULL,
>this really should be a RELEASE barrier. That stops loads from hitting
>dead memory too.
>
>Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
>---
> kernel/futex.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>--- a/kernel/futex.c
>+++ b/kernel/futex.c
>@@ -1288,8 +1288,7 @@ static void mark_wake_futex(struct wake_
> * memory barrier is required here to prevent the following
> * store to lock_ptr from getting ahead of the plist_del.
> */
>- smp_wmb();
>- q->lock_ptr = NULL;
>+ smp_store_release(&q->lock_ptr, NULL);
> }
Hmm, what if we relied on the implicit barrier in the wake_q_add()
above and got rid of the smp_wmb altogether? We'd obviously have to
move up __unqueue_futex(), but all we care about is the publishing
store to lock_ptr being the last operation, or at least the plist_del,
such that the wakeup order is respected; ie:
__unqueue_futex(q);
wake_q_add(wake_q, p);
q->lock_ptr = NULL;
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists