The smp_store_release() is not a full barrier. In order to avoid missed
wakeup, we may need to add memory barrier around locked and cpu state
variables adding to complexity. As the chance of spurious wakeup is very
low, it is easier and safer to just do an unconditional kick at unlock
time.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <waiman.l...@hp.com>
---
kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h | 4 +---
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
index 04ab181..f2f4807 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
+++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
@@ -239,7 +239,6 @@ static void pv_wait_head(struct qspinlock *lock, struct
mcs_spinlock *node)
cpu_relax();
}
- WRITE_ONCE(pn->state, vcpu_halted);
if (!lp) { /* ONCE */
lp = pv_hash(lock, pn);
/*
@@ -311,8 +310,7 @@ __visible void __pv_queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock
*lock)
* At this point the memory pointed at by lock can be freed/reused,
* however we can still use the pv_node to kick the CPU.
*/
- if (READ_ONCE(node->state) == vcpu_halted)
- pv_kick(node->cpu);
+ pv_kick(node->cpu);
}
/*
* Include the architecture specific callee-save thunk of the
--
1.7.1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
