From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=SJRp=O5=linuxfoundation.org=gregkh@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 16:41:36 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.14 21/72] locking/qspinlock: Ensure node is initialised
 before updating prev->next
Message-ID: <20181220154135.GB9962@kroah.com>
References: <20181220085922.332225035@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20181220085923.169451350@linuxfoundation.org>
 <CADVatmMq2cNhoM0RJyuS=u_u-K9ksM1TWLeD1+ytTzVsHx=i-A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CADVatmMq2cNhoM0RJyuS=u_u-K9ksM1TWLeD1+ytTzVsHx=i-A@mail.gmail.com>
List-ID: <stable.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 12:19:04PM +0000, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 9:27 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > 4.14-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> >
> > ------------------
> >
> > commit 95bcade33a8af38755c9b0636e36a36ad3789fe6 upstream.
> 
> It seems 9d4646d14d51 ("locking/qspinlock: Elide back-to-back RELEASE
> operations with smp_wmb()") is improving the fix. Is it worth to take
> this also?

If someone could test that this really does help things out, I would be
glad to take it :)

thanks,

greg k-h