[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADVatmMiwaOQ2R43CArk1s5=bxr7MUgzuDb0DfQO_LKLH_r-ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 19:20:03 +0000
From: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.14 21/72] locking/qspinlock: Ensure node is initialised
before updating prev->next
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 3:41 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 12:19:04PM +0000, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 9:27 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > 4.14-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > >
> > > ------------------
> > >
> > > commit 95bcade33a8af38755c9b0636e36a36ad3789fe6 upstream.
> >
> > It seems 9d4646d14d51 ("locking/qspinlock: Elide back-to-back RELEASE
> > operations with smp_wmb()") is improving the fix. Is it worth to take
> > this also?
>
> If someone could test that this really does help things out, I would be
> glad to take it :)
I can test if Will shows me how to test the improvement, but it might
be easier for him to test than showing me :)
--
Regards
Sudip
Powered by blists - more mailing lists