Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1465918 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hpe.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-19 04:40 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-08-19 04:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
[RFC PATCH-tip v4 01/10] locking/osq: Make lock/unlock proper acquire/release barrier Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hpe.com> - 2016-08-19 04:40 +0200
| From | Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hpe.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-19 04:40 +0200 |
| Subject | [RFC PATCH-tip v4 01/10] locking/osq: Make lock/unlock proper acquire/release barrier |
| Message-ID | <s7HSW-892-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
The osq_lock() and osq_unlock() function may not provide the necessary
acquire and release barrier in some cases. This patch makes sure
that the proper barriers are provided when osq_lock() is successful
or when osq_unlock() is called.
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
---
kernel/locking/osq_lock.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------
1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
index 05a3785..3da0b97 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
@@ -124,6 +124,11 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
cpu_relax_lowlatency();
}
+ /*
+ * Add an acquire memory barrier for pairing with the release barrier
+ * in unlock.
+ */
+ smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep();
return true;
unqueue:
@@ -198,13 +203,20 @@ void osq_unlock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
* Second most likely case.
*/
node = this_cpu_ptr(&osq_node);
- next = xchg(&node->next, NULL);
- if (next) {
- WRITE_ONCE(next->locked, 1);
+ next = xchg_relaxed(&node->next, NULL);
+ if (next)
+ goto unlock;
+
+ next = osq_wait_next(lock, node, NULL);
+ if (unlikely(!next)) {
+ /*
+ * In the unlikely event that the OSQ is empty, we need to
+ * provide a proper release barrier.
+ */
+ smp_mb();
return;
}
- next = osq_wait_next(lock, node, NULL);
- if (next)
- WRITE_ONCE(next->locked, 1);
+unlock:
+ smp_store_release(&next->locked, 1);
}
--
1.7.1
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web