Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 13:29:27 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Prateek Sood <prsood@codeaurora.org>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, sramana@codeaurora.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rwsem: fix missed wakeup due to reordering of load
Message-ID: <20170824112927.tqejopswi7mcy4sq@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1503487735-4362-1-git-send-email-prsood@codeaurora.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1503487735-4362-1-git-send-email-prsood@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1053
Lines: 30


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()