lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: WARN_ON_ONCE(!new_owner) within wake_futex_pi() triggerede
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 12:55:18AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 12:13:51AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > I might be wrong as usual, but this would definitely explain the fail very
> > > well.
> >
> > On recent versions of GCC, the fix would be to put this between the two
> > stores that need ordering:
> >
> > __atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> >
> > I must defer to Heiko on whether s390 GCC might tear the stores. My
> > guess is "probably not". ;-)
>
> So I just checked the latest glibc code. It has:
>
> /* We must not enqueue the mutex before we have acquired it.
> Also see comments at ENQUEUE_MUTEX. */
> __asm ("" ::: "memory");
> ENQUEUE_MUTEX_PI (mutex);
> /* We need to clear op_pending after we enqueue the mutex. */
> __asm ("" ::: "memory");
> THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
>
> 8f9450a0b7a9 ("Add compiler barriers around modifications of the robust mutex list.")
>
> in the glibc repository, There since Dec 24 2016 ...
>
> So the question is whether this is sufficient. That ordering only only
> matters vs. the thread itself and not for others.

Ah, in that case you can use __atomic_signal_fence(__ATOMIC_RELEASE)
instead of the __atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_RELEASE).

The __atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_RELEASE) provides ordering between
threads, but __atomic_signal_fence(__ATOMIC_RELEASE) only does so
within a thread.

Thanx, Paul

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-31 02:45    [W:0.068 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site