[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YsRcRgfZFl0K4L9h@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2022 17:44:06 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
mgorman@...e.de, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, tj@...nel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
svens@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 12/12] sched,signal,ptrace: Rework TASK_TRACED,
TASK_STOPPED state
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 10:39:59PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > That is, the two paths should already be synchronized, and the memory
> > barriers will not help anything inside the locks. The locking should (and
> > must) handle all that.
>
> I would presume so to. However the READ_ONCE that is going astray
> does not look like it is honoring that.
>
> So perhaps there is a bug in the s390 spin_lock barriers? Perhaps there
> is a subtle detail in the barriers that spin locks provide that we are
> overlooking?
So the thing is, s390 is, like x86, a TSO architecture with SC atomics.
Or at least it used to be; I'm not entirely solid on the Z196 features.
I've been looking at this and I can't find anything obviously wrong.
arch_spin_trylock_once() has what seems a spurious barrier() but that's
not going to cause this.
Specifically, s390 is using a simple test-and-set spinlock based on
their Compare-and-Swap (CS) instruction (so no Z196 funnies around).
Except perhaps arch_spin_unlock(), I can't grok the magic there. It does
something weird before the presumably regular TSO store of 0 into the
lock word.
Ooohh.. /me finds arch_spin_lock_queued().. *urfh* because obviously a
copy of queued spinlocks is what we need.
rwlock_t OTOH is using __atomic_add_*() and that's all Z196 magic.
Sven, does all this still reproduce if you take out
CONFIG_HAVE_MARCH_Z196_FEATURES ? Also, could you please explain the
Z196 bits or point me to the relevant section in the PoO. Additionally,
what's that _niai[48] stuff?
And I'm assuming s390 has hardware fairness on competing CS ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists