Re: FW: Commit 81a43adae3b9 (locking/mutex: Use acquire/release semantics) causing failures on arm64 (ThunderX)

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 01:33:14PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 01:26:47PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > While we're there, the acquire in osq_wait_next() seems somewhat ill
> > documented too.
> > 
> > I _think_ we need ACQUIRE semantics there because we want to strictly
> > order the lock-unqueue A,B,C steps and we get that with:
> > 
> >  A: SC
> >  B: ACQ
> >  C: Relaxed
> > 
> > Similarly for unlock we want the WRITE_ONCE to happen after
> > osq_wait_next, but in that case we can even rely on the control
> > dependency there.
> 
> Even for the lock-unqueue case, isn't B->C ordered by a control dependency
> because C consists only of stores?

Hmm, indeed. So we could go fully relaxed on it I suppose, since the
same is true for the unlock site.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/