From: Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>
To: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 FIX] Fix deadlock during find
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 13:01:29 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081206130128.GA7885@linux-sh.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081120134502.GA27286@gandalf.sssup.it>
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 01:04:28PM +0000, Michael Trimarchi wrote:
> ----- Messaggio originale -----
> > Da: Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>
> > A: Michael Trimarchi <trimarchimichael@yahoo.it>
> > Cc: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org
> > Inviato: Marted? 25 novembre 2008, 18:06:03
> > Oggetto: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 FIX] Fix deadlock during find
> >
[snip]
> > > @@ -48,18 +48,18 @@ __mutex_fastpath_lock_retval(atomic_t *count, int
> > (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
> > > static inline void
> > > __mutex_fastpath_unlock(atomic_t *count, void (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
> > > {
> > > - int __res, __orig;
> > > + int __res;
> > >
> > > __asm__ __volatile__ (
> > > - "movli.l @%2, %0 \n\t"
> > > - "mov %0, %1 \n\t"
> > > + "1: movli.l @%1, %0 \n\t"
> > > "add #1, %0 \n\t"
> > > - "movco.l %0, @%2 "
> > > - : "=&z" (__res), "=&r" (__orig)
> > > + "movco.l %0, @%1 \n\t"
> > > + "bf 1b\n\t"
> > > + : "=&z" (__res)
> > > : "r" (&(count)->counter)
> > > : "t" );
> > >
> > > - if (unlikely(__orig != 0))
> > > + if (unlikely(__res <= 0))
> > > fail_fn(count);
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > Making __mutex_fastpath_unlock() loop seems counter-intuitive. I think
> > the initial test on __orig is what was causing you issues rather than the
> > need for looping. I do see why ARM did it this way, but we don't have
> > precisely the same semantics there.
> >
> > Does the following patch against current git pass your test cases?
> >
> This is an old one patch. You integrate the correct one V3
>
The patch in question was against what is in current git. The very
definition of the fast-path is that it is a single-shot that isn't busy
looping, as that is what the slow path does. Unless you see any
particular issues with my patch, I will queue it up, as it brings us back
in line with what the fast-path semantics are supposed to be. So far I
haven't had any issues with the refactored fast-path.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-12-06 13:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-11-20 13:45 [RFC PATCH V2 FIX] Fix deadlock during find Michael Trimarchi
2008-11-25 17:06 ` Paul Mundt
2008-11-26 13:04 ` Michael Trimarchi
2008-12-06 13:01 ` Paul Mundt [this message]
2008-12-06 14:16 ` Michael Trimarchi
2008-12-06 14:17 ` Michael Trimarchi
2008-12-06 14:17 ` Michael Trimarchi
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=20081206130128.GA7885@linux-sh.org \
--to=lethal@linux-sh.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.