On Fri, 2016-03-06 at 03:49:48 UTC, Boqun Feng wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> index 523673d7583c..2ed893662866 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> @@ -64,6 +64,25 @@ st
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 02:52:05PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-03-06 at 03:49:48 UTC, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > There is an ordering issue with spin_unlock_wait() on powerpc, because
> > the spin_lock primitive is an ACQUIRE and an ACQUIRE is only ordering
> > the load part of the ope
On Fri, 2016-03-06 at 03:49:48 UTC, Boqun Feng wrote:
> There is an ordering issue with spin_unlock_wait() on powerpc, because
> the spin_lock primitive is an ACQUIRE and an ACQUIRE is only ordering
> the load part of the operation with memory operations following it.
...
> diff --git a/arch/power
There is an ordering issue with spin_unlock_wait() on powerpc, because
the spin_lock primitive is an ACQUIRE and an ACQUIRE is only ordering
the load part of the operation with memory operations following it.
Therefore the following event sequence can happen:
CPU 1 CPU 2
