On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 02:01:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

The scenario is:

	CPU0			CPU1

				unlock(x)
				  smp_store_release(&x->lock, 0);

	unlock(y)
	  smp_store_release(&next->lock, 1); /* next == &y */

				lock(y)
				  while (!(smp_load_acquire(&y->lock))
					cpu_relax();


Where the lock does _NOT_ issue a store to acquire the lock at all. Now
I don't think any of our current primitives manage this, so we should be
good, but it might just be possible.

So with a bit more through this seems fundamentally impossible, you
always needs some stores in a lock() implementation, the above for
instance needs to queue itself, otherwise CPU0 will not be able to find
it etc..