[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170824112927.tqejopswi7mcy4sq@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 13:29:27 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Prateek Sood <prsood@...eaurora.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, sramana@...eaurora.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rwsem: fix missed wakeup due to reordering of load
WTH did you not Cc the people that commented on your patch last time?
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 04:58:55PM +0530, Prateek Sood wrote:
> If a spinner is present, there is a chance that the load of
> rwsem_has_spinner() in rwsem_wake() can be reordered with
> respect to decrement of rwsem count in __up_write() leading
> to wakeup being missed.
> spinning writer up_write caller
> --------------- -----------------------
> [S] osq_unlock() [L] osq
> spin_lock(wait_lock)
> sem->count=0xFFFFFFFF00000001
> +0xFFFFFFFF00000000
> count=sem->count
> MB
> sem->count=0xFFFFFFFE00000001
> -0xFFFFFFFF00000001
> RMB
This doesn't make sense, it appears to order a STORE against something
else.
> spin_trylock(wait_lock)
> return
> rwsem_try_write_lock(count)
> spin_unlock(wait_lock)
> schedule()
Powered by blists - more mailing lists