From: peterz@infradead.org (Peter Zijlstra)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] arm64/locking: qspinlocks and qrwlocks support
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:05:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170420190530.GA6873@worktop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170420182318.4ddtfiobxz6hgbo4@yury-N73SV>
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 09:23:18PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> Is there some test to reproduce the locking failure for the case.
Possibly sysvsem stress before commit:
27d7be1801a4 ("ipc/sem.c: avoid using spin_unlock_wait()")
Although a similar scheme is also used in nf_conntrack, see commit:
b316ff783d17 ("locking/spinlock, netfilter: Fix nf_conntrack_lock() barriers")
> I
> ask because I run loctorture for many hours on my qemu (emulating
> cortex-a57), and I see no failures in the test reports. And Jan did it
> on ThunderX, and Adam on QDF2400 without any problems. So even if I
> rework those functions, how could I check them for correctness?
Running them doesn't prove them correct. Memory ordering bugs have been
in the kernel for many years without 'ever' triggering. This is stuff
you have to think about.
> Anyway, regarding the queued_spin_unlock_wait(), is my understanding
> correct that you assume adding smp_mb() before entering the for(;;)
> cycle, and using ldaxr/strxr instead of atomic_read()?
You'll have to ask Will, I always forget the arm64 details.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-20 19:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-10 21:35 [RFC PATCH 0/3] arm64: queued spinlocks and rw-locks Yury Norov
2017-04-10 21:35 ` [PATCH 1/3] kernel/locking: #include <asm/spinlock.h> in qrwlock.c Yury Norov
2017-04-10 21:35 ` [PATCH 2/3] asm-generic: don't #include <linux/atomic.h> in qspinlock_types.h Yury Norov
2017-04-10 21:35 ` [PATCH 3/3] arm64/locking: qspinlocks and qrwlocks support Yury Norov
2017-04-13 18:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-20 18:23 ` Yury Norov
2017-04-20 19:00 ` Mark Rutland
2017-04-20 19:05 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2017-04-26 12:39 ` Yury Norov
2017-04-28 15:44 ` Will Deacon
2017-04-12 17:04 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] arm64: queued spinlocks and rw-locks Adam Wallis
2017-04-13 10:33 ` Yury Norov
2017-04-28 15:37 ` Will Deacon
2017-04-24 13:36 ` Will Deacon
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-05-03 14:51 [PATCH " Yury Norov
2017-05-03 14:51 ` [PATCH 3/3] arm64/locking: qspinlocks and qrwlocks support Yury Norov
2017-05-09 4:47 ` Boqun Feng
2017-05-09 18:48 ` Yury Norov
2017-05-09 19:37 ` Yury Norov
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=20170420190530.GA6873@worktop \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).