From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=Wtxu=QH=vger.kernel.org=linux-kernel-owner@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_NEOMUTT autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CE38C169C4
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 17:07:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67])
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4379C218EA
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 17:07:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1732839AbfAaRHA (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:07:00 -0500
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:49973 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1727788AbfAaRHA (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:07:00 -0500
Received: from bigeasy by Galois.linutronix.de with local (Exim 4.80)
        (envelope-from <bigeasy@linutronix.de>)
        id 1gpFni-0002uK-I7; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 18:06:54 +0100
Date:   Thu, 31 Jan 2019 18:06:53 +0100
From:   Sebastian Sewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To:     Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        Stefan Liebler <stli@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: WARN_ON_ONCE(!new_owner) within wake_futex_pi() triggerede
Message-ID: <20190131170653.spnrxsiblkssleyd@linutronix.de>
References: <20190130132420.spwrq2d4oxeydk5s@linutronix.de>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901301428390.5537@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901301517220.1950@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901301853290.1622@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20190130210733.mg6aascw2gzl3oqz@linutronix.de>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901302314590.8200@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20190130233557.GA4240@linux.ibm.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901310049440.8200@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901310117110.8200@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20190131165228.GA32680@osiris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190131165228.GA32680@osiris>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 2019-01-31 17:52:28 [+0100], Heiko Carstens wrote:
> ...nevertheless Stefan and I looked through the lovely disassembly of
> _pthread_mutex_lock_full() to verify if the compiler barriers are
> actually doing what they are supposed to do. The generated code
> however does look correct.
> So, it must be something different.

would it make sense to use one locking function instead all three (lock,
try-lock, timed) in the test case to figure out if this is related to
one of the locking function?

Sebastian