From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755217Ab2HOOIR (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2012 10:08:17 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:34109 "EHLO mail-wg0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751065Ab2HOOIP (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2012 10:08:15 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 07:08:08 -0700 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Ben Hutchings Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Arnd Bergmann , Nicolas Pitre , Shan Kang , Will Deacon , Russell King Subject: Re: [ 20/82] ARM: 7467/1: mutex: use generic xchg-based implementation for ARMv6+ Message-ID: <20120815140808.GD22871@kroah.com> References: <20120813201746.448504360@linuxfoundation.org> <20120813201748.202917513@linuxfoundation.org> <1345038982.824.216.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1345038982.824.216.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > > > > 3.5-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > > > ------------------ > > > > From: Will Deacon > > > > 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? confused, greg k-h