Re: [PATCH -v4 04/10] futex: Use smp_store_release() in mark_wake_futex()

Path	csiph.com!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.unit0.net!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From	Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH -v4 04/10] futex: Use smp_store_release() in mark_wake_futex()
Date	Sat, 17 Dec 2016 02:00:07 +0100
Message-ID	<sPbw3-2nR-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<sNRfX-7LI-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <sNRfX-7LI-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
MIME-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition	inline
User-Agent	Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04)
Sender	robomod@news.nic.it
List-ID	<linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved	robomod@news.nic.it
Lines	51
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc	tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@kernel.org, juri.lelli@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, xlpang@redhat.com, bigeasy@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, jdesfossez@efficios.com, bristot@redhat.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
X-Original-Date	Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:50:45 -0800
X-Original-Message-ID	<20161217005045.GG62123@f23x64.localdomain>
X-Original-References	<20161213083638.938898295@infradead.org> <20161213085730.289714424@infradead.org>
X-Original-Sender	linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Xref	csiph.com linux.kernel:1543872

Show key headers only | View raw

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 09:36:42AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Since the futex_q can dissapear the instruction after assigning NULL,
> this really should be a RELEASE barrier. That stops loads from hitting
> dead memory too.
> 

+Paul McKenney

Per the introduction of the comment below from:

	f1a11e0 futex: remove the wait queue

I believe the intent was to ensure the plist_del in ... the previous
__unqueue_futex(q) ... from getting ahead of the smp_store_release added here,
which could result in q being destroyed by the waking task before plist_del can
act on it. Is that
right?

The comment below predates the refactoring which hid plist_del under the
__unqueue_futex() making it a bit less clear as to the associated plist_del:

However, since this comment, we have moved the wake-up out of wake_futex through
the use of wake queues (wake_up_q) which now happens after the hb lock is
released (see futex_wake, futex_wake_op, and futex_requeue). Is this race still
a valid concern?

> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> ---
>  kernel/futex.c |    3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> --- a/kernel/futex.c
> +++ b/kernel/futex.c
> @@ -1288,8 +1288,7 @@ static void mark_wake_futex(struct wake_
>  	 * memory barrier is required here to prevent the following
>  	 * store to lock_ptr from getting ahead of the plist_del.
>  	 */
> -	smp_wmb();
> -	q->lock_ptr = NULL;
> +	smp_store_release(&q->lock_ptr, NULL);
>  }
>  
>  static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, u32 uval, struct futex_q *top_waiter,
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH -v4 04/10] futex: Use smp_store_release() in mark_wake_futex() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-12-13 10:10 +0100
  Re: [PATCH -v4 04/10] futex: Use smp_store_release() in  mark_wake_futex() Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> - 2016-12-17 02:00 +0100

csiph-web