@@ -74,6 +74,32 @@ gtm_rwlock::read_lock (gtm_thread *tx)
if (writers.load (memory_order_relaxed))
+ // There is no writer, actually. However, we can have enabled
+ // a futex_wait in other readers by previously setting readers
+ // to 1, so we have to wake them up because there is no writer
+ // that will do that. We don't know whether the wake-up is
+ // really necessary, but we can get lost wake-up situations
+ // otherwise.
+ // No additional barrier nor a nonrelaxed load is required due
+ // to coherency constraints. write_unlock() checks readers to
+ // see if any wake-up is necessary, but it is not possible that
+ // a reader's store prevents a required later writer wake-up;
+ // If the waking reader's store (value 0) is in modification
+ // order after the waiting readers store (value 1), then the
+ // latter will have to read 0 in the futex due to coherency
+ // constraints and the happens-before enforced by the futex
+ // (paragraph 6.10 in the standard, 6.19.4 in the Batty et al
+ // TR); second, the writer will be forced to read in
+ // modification order too due to Dekker-style synchronization
+ // with the waiting reader (see write_unlock()).
+ // ??? Can we avoid the wake-up if readers is zero (like in
+ // write_unlock())? Anyway, this might happen too infrequently
+ // to improve performance significantly.
+ readers.store (0, memory_order_relaxed);
+ futex_wake(&readers, INT_MAX);
// And we try again to acquire a read lock.