[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170324211622.GB18290@fury>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:16:22 -0700
From: Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org, 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: [PATCH -v6 02/13] futex: Use smp_store_release() in
mark_wake_futex()
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:35:49AM +0100, 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>
I reviewed this carefully in the previous thread, confirming that despite the
move to wake queues, spurious wakeups can still lead to the situration Peter
describes. As such:
Reviewed-by: Darren Hart (VMware) <dvhart@...radead.org>
My only suggestion would be to clarify the language in the preceding comment to
make that obvious, as well as clarify which plist_del it is referring to since
it has been moved under the __unqueue_futex. I can do that as a follow-on though.
> ---
> 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);
> }
>
> static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, u32 uval, struct futex_q *top_waiter,
>
>
>
--
Darren Hart
VMware Open Source Technology Center
Powered by blists - more mailing lists