From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Raghavendra K T Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] x86 spinlock: Fix memory corruption on completing completions Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:55:42 +0530 Message-ID: <54DCB7E6.8040802@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1423741647-2156-1-git-send-email-raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150212140248.GA11050@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 To: Oleg Nesterov Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150212140248.GA11050@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 02/12/2015 07:32 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > Damn, sorry for noise, forgot to mention... > > On 02/12, Raghavendra K T wrote: >> >> +static inline void __ticket_check_and_clear_slowpath(arch_spinlock_t *lock, >> + __ticket_t head) >> +{ >> + if (head & TICKET_SLOWPATH_FLAG) { >> + arch_spinlock_t old, new; >> + >> + old.tickets.head = head; >> + new.tickets.head = head & ~TICKET_SLOWPATH_FLAG; >> + old.tickets.tail = new.tickets.head + TICKET_LOCK_INC; >> + new.tickets.tail = old.tickets.tail; >> + >> + /* try to clear slowpath flag when there are no contenders */ >> + cmpxchg(&lock->head_tail, old.head_tail, new.head_tail); >> + } >> +} > > ... > >> +clear_slowpath: >> + if (TICKET_SLOWPATH_FLAG) >> + __ticket_check_and_clear_slowpath(lock, inc.head); > > I think you can remove this "if (TICKET_SLOWPATH_FLAG)" check. If it is > defined as zero, gcc should optimize out the code under "if (head & 0)". > right, the above if ( ) is unnecesary, though we would have same code at the end, getting rid of that makes code more clean.