On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 06:01:59PM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 04:09:26PM +0200, Michael Mueller wrote: > > Does that make sense for you? > > Not really. If process_gib_alert_list() does guarantee the removal, > then it should be a condition, not the loop. > > But I am actually not into this code. Just wanted to point out that > cpu_relax() is removed from this loop and the two other loops within > process_gib_alert_list() do not have it either. Not sure if you are mainly referring to the missing cpu_relax(), however: any chance you missed that cpu_relax() translates only to barrier() on s390? So it really doesn't "relax" anything. cpu_relax() used to be a diagnose 0x44 (aka voluntary yield), but that caused many problems, therefore we removed that logic, and the only thing remaining is a no-op with compiler barrier semantics.