lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Dec]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: FW: Commit 81a43adae3b9 (locking/mutex: Use acquire/release semantics) causing failures on arm64 (ThunderX)
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 12:04:19PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> I think Andrew meant the atomic_xchg_acquire at the start of osq_lock,
> as opposed to "compare and swap". In which case, it does look like
> there's a bug here because there is nothing to order the initialisation
> of the node fields with publishing of the node, whether that's
> indirectly as a result of setting the tail to the current CPU or
> directly as a result of the WRITE_ONCE.

Agreed, this does indeed look like a bug. If confirmed please write a
shiny changelog and I'll queue asap.

> diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> index d092a0c9c2d4..05a37857ab55 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> @@ -93,10 +93,12 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
> node->cpu = curr;
>
> /*
> - * ACQUIRE semantics, pairs with corresponding RELEASE
> - * in unlock() uncontended, or fastpath.
> + * We need both ACQUIRE (pairs with corresponding RELEASE in
> + * unlock() uncontended, or fastpath) and RELEASE (to publish
> + * the node fields we just initialised) semantics when updating
> + * the lock tail.
> */
> - old = atomic_xchg_acquire(&lock->tail, curr);
> + old = atomic_xchg(&lock->tail, curr);
> if (old == OSQ_UNLOCKED_VAL)
> return true;
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-12-11 13:41    [W:2.253 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site