[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V5] x86 spinlock: Fix memory corruption on completing completions
- To: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 21:31:59 +0100
- Cc: jeremy@xxxxxxxx, kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, paul.gortmaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, hpa@xxxxxxxxx, ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, a.ryabinin@xxxxxxxxxxx, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx, sasha.levin@xxxxxxxxxx, davej@xxxxxxxxxx, tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, waiman.long@xxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 20:35:03 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
On 02/15, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>
> * Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2015-02-15 11:25:44]:
>
> Resending the V5 with smp_mb__after_atomic() change without bumping up
> revision
Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Of course, this needs the acks from maintainers. And I agree that SLOWPATH
in .head makes xadd() in unlock() unavoidable. However I do not see how we
can avoid the locked inc if we want to eliminate read-after-unlock.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
