lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Aug]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [ 20/82] ARM: 7467/1: mutex: use generic xchg-based implementation for ARMv6+
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 03:11:41PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 07:08 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 02:56:22PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 13:18 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > > >
> > > > 3.5-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > > >
> > > > ------------------
> > > >
> > > > From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> > > >
> > > > commit a76d7bd96d65fa5119adba97e1b58d95f2e78829 upstream.
> > > >
> > > > The open-coded mutex implementation for ARMv6+ cores suffers from a
> > > > severe lack of barriers, so in the uncontended case we don't actually
> > > > protect any accesses performed during the critical section.
> > > >
> > > > Furthermore, the code is largely a duplication of the ARMv6+ atomic_dec
> > > > code but optimised to remove a branch instruction, as the mutex fastpath
> > > > was previously inlined. Now that this is executed out-of-line, we can
> > > > reuse the atomic access code for the locking (in fact, we use the xchg
> > > > code as this produces shorter critical sections).
> > > >
> > > > This patch uses the generic xchg based implementation for mutexes on
> > > > ARMv6+, which introduces barriers to the lock/unlock operations and also
> > > > has the benefit of removing a fair amount of inline assembly code.
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Here also, I think this should be deferred.
> >
> > "also"? Am I missing some context here? Why should we deferr this one?
> > What do we need to wait for?
>
> This is the same as 3.4.9-rc1 patch 10/65, which I queried as it
> apparently caused a regression.
>
> Will Deacon wrote:
> > The additional patch should also be CC'd to stable and is sitting in -tip
> > somewhere I believe, so it shouldn't be long before it does hit mainline.
> >
> > Without this patch there's a memory-ordering bug (which we seem to have hit
> > once in > 5 years). With the patch there's a mutex lockup issue on SMP systems
> > that I can provoke with enough hackbenching, so you may want to hold off for
> > now.

Ah, ok, missed that.

How about I just drop this for now, and when someone (Will?) feels it is
"good enough time to wait", they will resend it to
stable@vger.kernel.org so that we can add it then? Otherwise I'll just
loose it somewhere.

Now dropped.

greg k-h


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-08-15 18:22    [W:0.121 / U:0.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site