Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 14:20:12 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Cc: Prateek Sood <prsood@codeaurora.org>, mingo@kernel.org,
        longman@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        sramana@codeaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rwsem: fix missed wakeup due to reordering of load
Message-ID: <20170927212012.GA26599@linux-80c1.suse>
References: <1504794658-15397-1-git-send-email-prsood@codeaurora.org>
 <20170920145254.GA3406@linux-80c1.suse>
 <20170920211727.GA26082@andrea>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170920211727.GA26082@andrea>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 592
Lines: 14

On Wed, 20 Sep 2017, Andrea Parri wrote:

>> Instead, how about just removing the release from atomic_long_sub_return_release()
>> such that the osq load is not hoisted over the atomic compound (along with Peter's
>> comment):
>
>This solution will actually enforce a stronger (full) ordering w.r.t. the
>solution described by Prateek and Peter. Also, it will "trade" two lwsync
>for two sync (powerpc), one dmb.ld for one dmb (arm64).
>
>What are the reasons you would prefer this?

It was mainly to maintain consistency about dealing with sem->count, but sure
I won't argue with the above.