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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1473787

Re: [PATCH 1/4] spinlock: Document memory barrier rules

Show all headers | View raw

On 08/31/2016 06:40 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>
> I'm struggling with this example. We have these locks:
>
>    &sem->lock
>    &sma->sem_base[0...sma->sem_nsems].lock
>    &sma->sem_perm.lock
>
> a condition variable:
>
>    sma->complex_mode
>
> and a new barrier:
>
>    smp_mb__after_spin_lock()
>
> For simplicity, we can make sma->sem_nsems == 1, and have &sma->sem_base[0]
> be &sem->lock in the example above.
Correct.
>   &sma->sem_perm.lock seems to be
> irrelevant.
Correct.
> The litmus test then looks a bit like:
>
> CPUm:
>
> LOCK(x)
> smp_mb();
> RyAcq=0
>
>
> CPUn:
>
> Wy=1
> smp_mb();
> UNLOCK_WAIT(x)
Correct.
>
> which I think can be simplified to:
>
>
> LOCK(x)
I thought that here a barrier is required, because Ry=0 could be before 
store of the lock.
> Ry=0
RyAcq instead of Ry would required due to the unlock at the end of the 
critical section
CpuN: <...>
           WyRelease=0
for the litmus test irrelevant.
> Wy=1
> smp_mb(); // Note that this is implied by spin_unlock_wait on PPC and arm64
> LOCK(x)   // spin_unlock_wait behaves like lock; unlock
> UNLOCK(x)

> [I've removed a bunch of barriers here, that I don't think are necessary
>   for the guarantees you're after]
>
> and the question is "Can both CPUs proceed?".
>
> Looking at the above, then I don't think that they can. Whilst CPUm can
> indeed speculate the Ry=0 before successfully taking the lock, if CPUn
> observes CPUm's read, then it must also observe the lock being held wrt
> the spin_lock API. That is because a successful LOCK operation by CPUn
> would force CPUm to replay its LL/SC loop and therefore discard its
> speculation of y.
>
> What am I missing? The code snippet seems to have too many barriers to me!
spin_unlock_wait() is not necessarily lock()+unlock().
It can be a simple Rx, or now RxAcq.

So I had assumed:

CPUm:

LOCK(x)
smp_mb(); /* at least for PPC, therefore with arch override */
RyAcq=0


CPUn:

Wy=1
smp_mb(); /* at least for archs where UNLOCK_WAIT is RxAcq */
UNLOCK_WAIT(x)
smp_rmb(); /* not required anymore, was required when UNLOCK_WAIT was Rx */


--
     Manfred

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

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