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;
Date:   Fri, 27 Mar 2020 08:40:05 +1100
From:   Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>
To:     Leonardo Bras <leonardo@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] ppc/smp: Replace unnecessary 'while' by 'if'
Message-ID: <20200326214005.GB9894@blackberry>
References: <20200326203752.497029-1-leonardo@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200326203752.497029-1-leonardo@linux.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 05:37:52PM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> spin_until_cond() will wait until nmi_ipi_busy == false, and
> nmi_ipi_lock_start() does not seem to change nmi_ipi_busy, so there is
> no way this while will ever repeat.
> 
> Replace this 'while' by an 'if', so it does not look like it can repeat.

Nack, it can repeat.  The scenario is that cpu A is in this code,
inside spin_until_cond(); cpu B has previously set nmi_ipi_busy, and
cpu C is also waiting for nmi_ipi_busy to be cleared, like cpu A.
When cpu B clears nmi_ipi_busy, both cpu A and cpu C will see that and
will race inside nmi_ipi_lock_start().  One of them, say cpu C, will
take the lock and proceed to set nmi_ipi_busy and then call
nmi_ipi_unlock().  Then the other cpu (cpu A) will then take the lock
and return from nmi_ipi_lock_start() and find nmi_ipi_busy == true.
At that point it needs to go through the while loop body once more.

Paul.