Re: [PATCH -next v2] locking/osq_lock: annotate a data race in osq_lock

[Will Deacon]

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 09:43:19AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 04:58:13PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 02:36:54PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> > > index 1f77349..1de006e 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> > > @@ -154,7 +154,11 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
> > >  	 */
> > >  
> > >  	for (;;) {
> > > -		if (prev->next == node &&
> > > +		/*
> > > +		 * cpu_relax() below implies a compiler barrier which would
> > > +		 * prevent this comparison being optimized away.
> > > +		 */
> > > +		if (data_race(prev->next) == node &&
> > >  		    cmpxchg(&prev->next, node, NULL) == node)
> > >  			break;
> > 
> > I'm fine with the data_race() placement, but I don't find the comment
> > very helpful. We assign the result of a READ_ONCE() to 'prev' in the
> > loop, so I don't think that the cpu_relax() is really relevant.
> 
> Suppose that the compiler loaded a value that was not equal to "node".
> In that case, the cmpxchg() won't happen, so something else must force
> the compiler to do the reload in order to avoid an infinite loop, right?
> Or am I missing something here?

Then we just go round the loop and reload prev:

	prev = READ_ONCE(node->prev);

which should be enough to stop the compiler, no?

Will