Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1626874
| From | "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/13] rcu: Add smp_mb__after_atomic() to sync_exp_work_done() |
| Date | 2017-04-20 01:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ty7cS-1dY-17@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <tvQg9-5H7-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <tvQzw-66m-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <tvR2y-6iE-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <tvRce-6mR-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <tvRlT-6FZ-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 07:59:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 07:51:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > I suppose that one alternative is the new variant of kerneldoc, though
> > > very few of these functions have comment headers, let alone kerneldoc
> > > headers. Which reminds me, the question of spin_unlock_wait() and
> > > spin_is_locked() semantics came up a bit ago. Here is what I believe
> > > to be the case. Does this match others' expectations?
> > >
> > > o spin_unlock_wait() semantics:
> > >
> > > 1. Any access in any critical section prior to the
> > > spin_unlock_wait() is visible to all code following
> > > (in program order) the spin_unlock_wait().
> > >
> > > 2. Any access prior (in program order) to the
> > > spin_unlock_wait() is visible to any critical
> > > section following the spin_unlock_wait().
> > >
> > > o spin_is_locked() semantics: Half of spin_unlock_wait(),
> > > but only if it returns false:
> > >
> > > 1. Any access in any critical section prior to the
> > > spin_unlock_wait() is visible to all code following
> > > (in program order) the spin_unlock_wait().
> >
> > Urgh.. yes those are pain. The best advise is to not use them.
> >
> > 055ce0fd1b86 ("locking/qspinlock: Add comments")
>
> The big problem with spin_unlock_wait(), aside from the icky barrier
> semantics, is that it tends to end up prone to starvation. So where
> spin_lock()+spin_unlock() have guaranteed fwd progress if the lock is
> fair (ticket,queued,etc..) spin_unlock_wait() must often lack that
> guarantee.
>
> Equally, spin_unlock_wait() was intended to be 'cheap' and be a
> read-only loop, but in order to satisfy the barrier requirements, it
> ends up doing stores anyway (see for example the arm64 and ppc
> implementations).
Good points, and my proposed patch includes verbiage urging the use
of something else to get the job done. Does that work?
Thanx, Paul
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/13] rcu: Add smp_mb__after_atomic() to sync_exp_work_done() "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-04-12 19:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/13] rcu: Add smp_mb__after_atomic() to sync_exp_work_done() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-04-13 11:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/13] rcu: Add smp_mb__after_atomic() to sync_exp_work_done() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-04-13 11:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/13] rcu: Add smp_mb__after_atomic() to sync_exp_work_done() "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-04-13 18:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/13] rcu: Add smp_mb__after_atomic() to sync_exp_work_done() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-04-13 18:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/13] rcu: Add smp_mb__after_atomic() to sync_exp_work_done() "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-04-13 19:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/13] rcu: Add smp_mb__after_atomic() to sync_exp_work_done() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-04-13 19:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/13] rcu: Add smp_mb__after_atomic() to sync_exp_work_done() "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-04-13 19:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/13] rcu: Add smp_mb__after_atomic() to sync_exp_work_done() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-04-13 20:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/13] rcu: Add smp_mb__after_atomic() to sync_exp_work_done() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-04-13 20:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/13] rcu: Add smp_mb__after_atomic() to sync_exp_work_done() "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-04-20 01:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/13] rcu: Add smp_mb__after_atomic() to sync_exp_work_done() "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-04-20 01:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/13] rcu: Add smp_mb__after_atomic() to sync_exp_work_done() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-04-20 13:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/13] rcu: Add smp_mb__after_atomic() to sync_exp_work_done() "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-04-20 17:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/13] rcu: Add smp_mb__after_atomic() to sync_exp_work_done() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-04-20 17:10 +0200
csiph-web