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 S1753243AbbCGBxa (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:53:30 -0500
Received: from g4t3427.houston.hp.com ([15.201.208.55]:39673 "EHLO
	g4t3427.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751179AbbCGBx3 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:53:29 -0500
Message-ID: <1425693206.2475.315.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Subject: Re: softlockups in multi_cpu_stop
From: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>, jason.low2@hp.com
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 17:53:26 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFz3E6KNH4Z0ntAJfTXo=p1aduuTjotdTVy5BjTj4CoP1A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54F41516.6060608@oracle.com> <54F98F1F.3080107@oracle.com>
	 <20150306123233.GA9972@gmail.com> <1425662342.19505.41.camel@stgolabs.net>
	 <1425668223.2475.94.camel@j-VirtualBox>
	 <CA+55aFwZufdV5Q7Wm+b2F8KurtgXsJ_eNe9b6_TOSUhuW_GfSg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1425670188.2475.113.camel@j-VirtualBox>
	 <1425676346.2475.135.camel@j-VirtualBox>
	 <CA+55aFz3E6KNH4Z0ntAJfTXo=p1aduuTjotdTVy5BjTj4CoP1A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 13:24 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com> wrote:
> >
> > +       while (true) {
> > +               if (sem->owner != owner)
> > +                       break;
> 
> That looks *really* odd.
> 
> Why is this not
> 
>         while (sem->owner == owner) {

Yes, this looks more readable.

That while (true) thing was something we recently did for mutexes which
was why I originally had that.

> Also, this "barrier()" now lost the comment:
> 
> > +               barrier();
> 
> so it looks very odd indeed.

Right, we should keep the comment for the barrier().