Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1463145

Re: spin_lock implicit/explicit memory barrier

Show all headers | View raw

Hi Paul,

On 08/10/2016 11:00 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:17:57PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> [...]
>>    CPU0			      CPU1
>>    complex_mode = true	      spin_lock(l)
>>    smp_mb()				  <--- do we want a smp_mb() here?
>>    spin_unlock_wait(l)	      if (!smp_load_acquire(complex_mode))
>>    foo()			 foo()
>>
>> We should not be doing an smp_mb() right after a spin_lock(), makes no sense. The
>> spinlock machinery should guarantee us the barriers in the unorthodox locking cases,
>> such as this.
> In this case, from what I can see, we do need a store-load fence.
> That said, yes, it really should be smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() rather
> than smp_mb().  So if this code pattern is both desired and legitimate,
> the smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() definitions probably need to move out
> of kernel/rcu/tree.h to barrier.h or some such.
Can you explain the function name, why smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()?

I would have called it smp_mb__after_spin_lock().

For ipc/sem.c, the use case is:
[sorry, I only now notice that the mailer ate the formatting]:

  cpu 1: complex_mode_enter():
     smp_store_mb(sma->complex_mode, true);

    for (i = 0; i < sma->sem_nsems; i++) {
         sem = sma->sem_base + i;
         spin_unlock_wait(&sem->lock);
     }

cpu 2: sem_lock():
         spin_lock(&sem->lock);
         smp_mb();
         if (!smp_load_acquire(&sma->complex_mode)) {


What is forbidden is that both cpu1 and cpu2 proceed.

--
     Manfred

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: spin_lock implicit/explicit memory barrier Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> - 2016-08-15 22:10 +0200
  Re: spin_lock implicit/explicit memory barrier "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-08-15 22:30 +0200

csiph-web