From: peterz@infradead•org (Peter Zijlstra)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: FW: Commit 81a43adae3b9 (locking/mutex: Use acquire/release semantics) causing failures on arm64 (ThunderX)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 18:11:28 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151211171128.GC6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151211140649.GI18828@arm.com>
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 02:06:49PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 02:48:03PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 01:33:14PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 01:26:47PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > > While we're there, the acquire in osq_wait_next() seems somewhat ill
> > > > documented too.
> > > >
> > > > I _think_ we need ACQUIRE semantics there because we want to strictly
> > > > order the lock-unqueue A,B,C steps and we get that with:
> > > >
> > > > A: SC
> > > > B: ACQ
> > > > C: Relaxed
> > > >
> > > > Similarly for unlock we want the WRITE_ONCE to happen after
> > > > osq_wait_next, but in that case we can even rely on the control
> > > > dependency there.
> > >
> > > Even for the lock-unqueue case, isn't B->C ordered by a control dependency
> > > because C consists only of stores?
> >
> > Hmm, indeed. So we could go fully relaxed on it I suppose, since the
> > same is true for the unlock site.
>
> In which case, we should be able to relax the xchg in there (osq_wait_next)
> too, right?
Can I have second thoughts an confuse matters again? ;-)
A RmW-acq is a load-acquire+store. That means the store is _after_ the
load and thus not required for the completion of the control dependency.
Therefore the store in question can reorder inside the conditional
control block's stores.
Hmm?
Suggesting this acquire is in fact also wrong, since we need full order
ops to guarantee full order both in lock and unlock.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-11 17:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-10 19:43 Commit 81a43adae3b9 (locking/mutex: Use acquire/release semantics) causing failures on arm64 (ThunderX) David Daney
[not found] ` <SN1PR07MB21577C72379C8440A208D6BC9EEA0@SN1PR07MB2157.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
2015-12-11 3:29 ` FW: " Andrew Pinski
2015-12-11 4:51 ` Andrew Pinski
2015-12-11 8:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-11 12:04 ` Will Deacon
2015-12-11 12:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-11 12:18 ` Will Deacon
2015-12-11 12:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-11 13:33 ` Will Deacon
2015-12-11 13:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-11 14:06 ` Will Deacon
2015-12-11 17:11 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2015-12-11 17:24 ` Will Deacon
2015-12-11 22:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-12-14 20:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-15 4:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-12-11 14:17 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-12-17 21:52 ` Jeremy Linton
2015-12-11 7:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-11 9:59 ` Will Deacon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20151211171128.GC6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead$(echo .)org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox