From: dave@stgolabs.net (Davidlohr Bueso)
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 06:17:47 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151211141747.GC5650@linux-uzut.site> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151211120419.GD18828@arm.com>
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015, 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.
Sorry I'm late to the party.
Duh yes this is obviously bogus, and worse I recall triggering a similar
tail initialization issue in osq_lock on some experimental work on x86,
so this is very much a point of failure. Ack.
>
>Andrew, David: does making that atomic_xchg_acquire and atomic_xchg
>fix things for you?
>
>I don't fully grok what 81a43adae3b9 has to do with any of this, so
>maybe there's another bug too.
I think this is mainly because mutex_optimistic_spin is where the stack
shows the lockup, which really translates to c55a6ffa62.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Andrew Pinski <andrew.pinski@caviumnetworks.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: FW: Commit 81a43adae3b9 (locking/mutex: Use acquire/release semantics) causing failures on arm64 (ThunderX)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 06:17:47 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151211141747.GC5650@linux-uzut.site> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151211120419.GD18828@arm.com>
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015, 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.
Sorry I'm late to the party.
Duh yes this is obviously bogus, and worse I recall triggering a similar
tail initialization issue in osq_lock on some experimental work on x86,
so this is very much a point of failure. Ack.
>
>Andrew, David: does making that atomic_xchg_acquire and atomic_xchg
>fix things for you?
>
>I don't fully grok what 81a43adae3b9 has to do with any of this, so
>maybe there's another bug too.
I think this is mainly because mutex_optimistic_spin is where the stack
shows the lockup, which really translates to c55a6ffa62.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-11 14:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ 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
2015-12-10 19:43 ` David Daney
[not found] ` <SN1PR07MB21577C72379C8440A208D6BC9EEA0@SN1PR07MB2157.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
2015-12-11 3:29 ` FW: " Andrew Pinski
2015-12-11 3:29 ` Andrew Pinski
2015-12-11 4:51 ` Andrew Pinski
2015-12-11 4:51 ` Andrew Pinski
2015-12-11 8:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-11 8:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-11 12:04 ` Will Deacon
2015-12-11 12:04 ` Will Deacon
2015-12-11 12:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-11 12:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-11 12:18 ` Will Deacon
2015-12-11 12:18 ` Will Deacon
2015-12-11 12:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-11 12:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-11 13:33 ` Will Deacon
2015-12-11 13:33 ` Will Deacon
2015-12-11 13:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-11 13:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-11 14:06 ` Will Deacon
2015-12-11 14:06 ` Will Deacon
2015-12-11 17:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-11 17:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-11 17:24 ` Will Deacon
2015-12-11 17:24 ` Will Deacon
2015-12-11 22:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-12-11 22:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-12-14 18:49 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2015-12-14 20:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-15 4:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-12-14 20:28 ` FW: " Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-14 20:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-15 4:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-12-15 4:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-12-11 14:17 ` Davidlohr Bueso [this message]
2015-12-11 14:17 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-12-17 21:52 ` Jeremy Linton
2015-12-17 21:52 ` Jeremy Linton
2015-12-11 7:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-11 7:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-11 9:59 ` Will Deacon
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=20151211141747.GC5650@linux-uzut.site \
--to=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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.