Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1473033
| From | Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/4] spinlock: Document memory barrier rules |
| Date | 2016-08-31 07:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sc5N0-6gr-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <sb6UO-1cS-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <sb6UO-1cS-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <sbsiC-6dl-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <sbukq-7qb-35@gated-at.bofh.it> <sbv6N-7Wm-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 08/29/2016 03:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> If you add a barrier, the Changelog had better be clear. And I'm still
> not entirely sure I get what exactly this barrier should do, nor why it
> defaults to a full smp_mb. If what I suspect it should do, only PPC and
> ARM64 need the barrier.
The barrier must ensure that taking the spinlock (as observed by another
cpu with spin_unlock_wait()) and a following read are ordered.
start condition: sma->complex_mode = false;
CPU 1:
spin_lock(&sem->lock); /* sem_nsems instances */
smp_mb__after_spin_lock();
if (!smp_load_acquire(&sma->complex_mode)) {
/* fast path successful! */
return sops->sem_num;
}
/* slow path, not relevant */
CPU 2: (holding sma->sem_perm.lock)
smp_store_mb(sma->complex_mode, true);
for (i = 0; i < sma->sem_nsems; i++) {
spin_unlock_wait(&sma->sem_base[i].lock);
}
It must not happen that both CPUs proceed:
Either CPU1 proceeds, then CPU2 must spin in spin_unlock_wait()
or CPU2 proceeds, then CPU1 must enter the slow path.
What about this?
/*
* spin_lock() provides ACQUIRE semantics regarding reading the lock.
* There are no guarantees that the store of the lock is visible before
* any read or write operation within the protected area is performed.
* If the store of the lock must happen first, this function is required.
*/
#define spin_lock_store_acquire()
I would update the patch series.
--
Manfred
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH 0/4] Clarify/standardize memory barriers for lock/unlock Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> - 2016-08-28 14:00 +0200
[PATCH 1/4] spinlock: Document memory barrier rules Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> - 2016-08-28 14:00 +0200
[PATCH 2/4] barrier.h: Move smp_mb__after_unlock_lock to barrier.h Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> - 2016-08-28 14:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/4] barrier.h: Move smp_mb__after_unlock_lock to barrier.h "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-08-28 15:50 +0200
[PATCH 2/4] barrier.h: Move smp_mb__after_unlock_lock to barrier.h Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> - 2016-08-28 18:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/4] barrier.h: Move smp_mb__after_unlock_lock to barrier.h Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> - 2016-08-28 20:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/4] spinlock: Document memory barrier rules Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-08-29 12:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/4] spinlock: Document memory barrier rules Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> - 2016-08-29 15:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/4] spinlock: Document memory barrier rules Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-08-29 15:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/4] spinlock: Document memory barrier rules Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> - 2016-08-31 07:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/4] spinlock: Document memory barrier rules Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-08-31 17:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/4] spinlock: Document memory barrier rules Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2016-08-31 18:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/4] spinlock: Document memory barrier rules Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> - 2016-08-31 20:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/4] spinlock: Document memory barrier rules Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-09-01 10:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/4] spinlock: Document memory barrier rules Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> - 2016-09-01 13:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/4] spinlock: Document memory barrier rules Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2016-09-01 13:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/4] spinlock: Document memory barrier rules Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-09-01 14:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/4] spinlock: Document memory barrier rules Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 16:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/4] Clarify/standardize memory barriers for lock/unlock Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-08-29 13:00 +0200
csiph-web