Received: by 2002:ac0:8c9a:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id r26csp181545ima; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 14:35:49 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN5oPPhVceemi+U5YJCxX0253MaYICXrqEx7A00Y3NkokqD+VgQSAbRqnLtQrBTStatBB6xL X-Received: by 2002:a62:53c5:: with SMTP id h188mr36025571pfb.190.1548974149582; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 14:35:49 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1548974149; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=AfMEvaNuW0CD5xXuP+5qODqczUadbANUiEpo3uQI20UK33oi2UjBBw8PRCI447KPBz Q6AZPMPdzjlkpizZjG5d1FZ1lAYAQjJg+AUlIoeC4pL5N3rESDFapSqscWjLkzUx9BNp sWu/+WLJPcizl1S6m7nVXRDsvDr/7/gHHhq5LZMwfP36Sr7CJUQrP9G/O/AFTAXw+Ya7 NSw4a0svSrLLpJb+8SOoZ85xK4UJQSeQ3SSDCa2F1lqaFZWn/6gv2uX23NSFgq5TuQwb LTf8PuyelNDL1L7CmPghKj96ghWt1L5i62joMmDz9E7bZHYBBGvomHxN0hp+nlggeWcF wHtQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-disposition :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version :references:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=q5M9oJIylYYPcdgxWdE0AJwScn3rCpPc0IC8332j5FI=; b=cKSSsLobv9OKjJuh3DVTl4xulxs/LXmMyq7zpogLJ4QIM3XeRCo5Dkyjv6loVCzuJo AjCOMsYtTKL7SKKU13melT5JY5zac0b5/yqhAqdMsAX4e8ErlCL3hXYrZCoJLpCiNJCZ xv4dmEa/IwQnuFNFWFd8jcbBoN7xWi2AJ2fGQqqQHEa5l5omO//QjCZw0E+nhLrwsH46 a3xq0l7j4ZIkyKYo/iuBV5ThYFsneIwEn9vxJQqe3cy283EgXNtZ7lEvtY9heNB5XRL6 QJcksoNX5nCzlHSDk50zzQImPfq4fGyqK5iPCt86EXVEbzZbLp62ThwQYLzaxEZuQB3m K1cg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id o184si5354514pgo.591.2019.01.31.14.35.34; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 14:35:49 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728966AbfAaUnI (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 31 Jan 2019 15:43:08 -0500 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:39592 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726784AbfAaUnH (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jan 2019 15:43:07 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098413.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x0VKdLUm096036 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 15:43:05 -0500 Received: from e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.99]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2qc65t5vjy-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 15:43:05 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 20:43:04 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.197) by e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.133) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Thu, 31 Jan 2019 20:43:00 -0000 Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (mk.ibm.com [9.149.105.60]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x0VKgw2O7536936 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 31 Jan 2019 20:42:59 GMT Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id D47B142047; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 20:42:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DE8F42042; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 20:42:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from osiris (unknown [9.145.190.103]) by d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 20:42:58 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 21:42:57 +0100 From: Heiko Carstens To: Sebastian Sewior Cc: Thomas Gleixner , "Paul E. McKenney" , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Martin Schwidefsky , LKML , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Stefan Liebler Subject: Re: WARN_ON_ONCE(!new_owner) within wake_futex_pi() triggerede References: <20190130210733.mg6aascw2gzl3oqz@linutronix.de> <20190130233557.GA4240@linux.ibm.com> <20190131165228.GA32680@osiris> <20190131170653.spnrxsiblkssleyd@linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190131170653.spnrxsiblkssleyd@linutronix.de> X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19013120-0012-0000-0000-000002EFA449 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19013120-0013-0000-0000-00002126F10F Message-Id: <20190131204257.GA3636@osiris> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-01-31_11:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=1 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1901310152 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 06:06:53PM +0100, Sebastian Sewior wrote: > On 2019-01-31 17:52:28 [+0100], Heiko Carstens wrote: > > ...nevertheless Stefan and I looked through the lovely disassembly of > > _pthread_mutex_lock_full() to verify if the compiler barriers are > > actually doing what they are supposed to do. The generated code > > however does look correct. > > So, it must be something different. > > would it make sense to use one locking function instead all three (lock, > try-lock, timed) in the test case to figure out if this is related to > one of the locking function? Sure, I will give that a try tomorrow.