On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 04:04:46PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 06:48:04PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > @@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ void osq_unlock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
> > * Second most likely case.
> > */
> > node = this_cpu_ptr(&osq_node);
> > - next = xchg(&node->next, NULL);
> > + next = xchg_release(&node->next, NULL);
> > if (next) {
> > WRITE_ONCE(next->locked, 1);
>
> So we still use WRITE_ONCE() rather than smp_store_release() here?
>
> Though, IIUC, This is fine for all the archs but ARM64, because there
> will always be a xchg_release()/xchg() before the WRITE_ONCE(), which
> carries a necessary barrier to upgrade WRITE_ONCE() to a RELEASE.
Not sure. On PPC for example, you'll use lwsync() but will that not
attach to the store to &node->next instead?
Still leaving that store and the WRITE_ONCE() unordered.
Also I don't see the control dependency between xchg-load and WRITE_ONCE
helping anything to order the two stores.
So yeah, subtle if not broken, definitely needs more explanation.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
