Message-ID: <54E0D889.8030206@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 23:04:01 +0530
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
CC: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, konrad.wilk@oracle.com,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, waiman.long@hp.com,
        davej@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org, jeremy@goop.org,
        paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, ak@linux.intel.com, jasowang@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, riel@redhat.com,
        borntraeger@de.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        a.ryabinin@samsung.com, sasha.levin@oracle.com, dave@stgolabs.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5] x86 spinlock: Fix memory corruption on completing
 completions
References: <1423979744-18320-1-git-send-email-raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150215161733.GB27608@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150215161733.GB27608@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1209
Lines: 36

On 02/15/2015 09:47 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Well, I regret I mentioned the lack of barrier after enter_slowpath ;)
>
> On 02/15, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>
>> @@ -46,7 +46,8 @@ static __always_inline bool static_key_false(struct static_key *key);
>>
>>   static inline void __ticket_enter_slowpath(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
>>   {
>> -	set_bit(0, (volatile unsigned long *)&lock->tickets.tail);
>> +	set_bit(0, (volatile unsigned long *)&lock->tickets.head);
>> +	barrier();
>>   }
>
> Because this barrier() looks really confusing.
>
> Firsty, it is equally unneeded on x86. At the same time, it can not help.
> We need a memory barrier() between set_bit(SLOWPATH) and READ_ONCE(head)
> to avoid the race with spin_unlock().
>
> So I think you should replace it with smp_mb__after_atomic() or remove it.
>

I resent the patch the above change.

>
> Other than that I believe this version is correct. So I won't insist, this
> is cosmetic after all.

Thanks Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/