From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754124AbcIAG5v (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 1 Sep 2016 02:57:51 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:37060 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751743AbcIAG5q (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 1 Sep 2016 02:57:46 -0400
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 08:57:38 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <nicholas.piggin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Fix a race between rwsem and the scheduler
Message-ID: <20160901065738.GH10153@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <4050f2ce-1aee-d2aa-39e3-36e995b56252@gmail.com>
 <20160830121937.GQ10138@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160830130426.GA17795@redhat.com>
 <20160830141321.GB2794@worktop>
 <20160830165746.GA29218@redhat.com>
 <20160830183416.GV10138@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <1472592498.2388.40.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
 <20160831133104.GD10153@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <1472680030.2388.95.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1472680030.2388.95.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 07:47:10AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

> > OK, for giggles, could you (or Balbir) check what happens if you take
> > that sync out?

> The problem is no amount of testing can tell you it works for sure :-)

It breaking does prove the negative though, so still interesting.

> I would be nervous not having a real full sync in _switch. All we have
> along the scheduler path is lwsync's and our isync based load construct
> for spin_lock, I'm not sure what other assumptions we have around that
> sync in there...

Only one way to find out  ;-)

I'm not saying you should commit that change, just curious if (and how
fast) it would come apart.

At the very least we could update the comment that goes with that sync.