From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: jeremy@goop.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, hpa@zytor.com, ak@linux.intel.com,
a.ryabinin@samsung.com, x86@kernel.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com,
mingo@redhat.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, riel@redhat.com,
konrad.wilk@oracle.com, dave@stgolabs.net,
sasha.levin@oracle.com, davej@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
waiman.long@hp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
pbonzini@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5] x86 spinlock: Fix memory corruption on completing completions
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 21:31:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150215203159.GA8191@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150215173043.GA7471@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On 02/15, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>
> * Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2015-02-15 11:25:44]:
>
> Resending the V5 with smp_mb__after_atomic() change without bumping up
> revision
Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Of course, this needs the acks from maintainers. And I agree that SLOWPATH
in .head makes xadd() in unlock() unavoidable. However I do not see how we
can avoid the locked inc if we want to eliminate read-after-unlock.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com,
peterz@infradead.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
konrad.wilk@oracle.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, waiman.long@hp.com, davej@redhat.com,
x86@kernel.org, jeremy@goop.org, paul.gortmaker@windriver.com,
ak@linux.intel.com, jasowang@redhat.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, riel@redhat.com,
borntraeger@de.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
a.ryabinin@samsung.com, sasha.levin@oracle.com,
dave@stgolabs.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5] x86 spinlock: Fix memory corruption on completing completions
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 21:31:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150215203159.GA8191@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150215173043.GA7471@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On 02/15, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>
> * Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2015-02-15 11:25:44]:
>
> Resending the V5 with smp_mb__after_atomic() change without bumping up
> revision
Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Of course, this needs the acks from maintainers. And I agree that SLOWPATH
in .head makes xadd() in unlock() unavoidable. However I do not see how we
can avoid the locked inc if we want to eliminate read-after-unlock.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-15 20:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-15 5:55 [PATCH V5] x86 spinlock: Fix memory corruption on completing completions Raghavendra K T
2015-02-15 5:55 ` Raghavendra K T
2015-02-15 5:55 ` Raghavendra K T
2015-02-15 6:01 ` Raghavendra K T
2015-02-15 6:01 ` Raghavendra K T
2015-02-15 6:01 ` Raghavendra K T
2015-02-17 18:26 ` Sasha Levin
2015-02-17 18:26 ` Sasha Levin
2015-02-17 18:26 ` Sasha Levin
2015-02-15 16:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-02-15 16:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-02-15 16:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-02-15 17:34 ` Raghavendra K T
2015-02-15 17:34 ` Raghavendra K T
2015-02-15 17:34 ` Raghavendra K T
2015-02-15 17:30 ` Raghavendra K T
2015-02-15 17:30 ` Raghavendra K T
2015-02-15 17:30 ` Raghavendra K T
2015-02-15 20:31 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-02-15 20:31 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2015-02-15 20:31 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-02-16 16:47 ` David Vrabel
2015-02-16 16:47 ` [Xen-devel] " David Vrabel
2015-02-16 16:47 ` David Vrabel
2015-02-17 10:03 ` Raghavendra K T
2015-02-17 10:03 ` Raghavendra K T
2015-02-17 10:03 ` [Xen-devel] " Raghavendra K T
2015-02-18 17:07 ` [tip:locking/core] x86/spinlocks/paravirt: Fix memory corruption on unlock tip-bot for Raghavendra K T
2015-02-15 17:30 ` [PATCH V5] x86 spinlock: Fix memory corruption on completing completions Raghavendra K T
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-02-15 5:55 Raghavendra K T
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=20150215203159.GA8191@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=a.ryabinin@samsung.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paul.gortmaker@windriver.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=sasha.levin@oracle.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=waiman.long@hp.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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.