Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1471428 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-28 20:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-08-28 20:10 +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.
[PATCH 2/4 v3] spinlock.h: Move smp_mb__after_unlock_lock to spinlock.h Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> - 2016-08-28 20:10 +0200
| From | Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-28 20:10 +0200 |
| Subject | [PATCH 2/4 v3] spinlock.h: Move smp_mb__after_unlock_lock to spinlock.h |
| Message-ID | <sbcGS-52W-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
v3: If smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() is in barrier.h, then
for arm64, kernel/rcu/tree.c doesn't compile because barrier.h
is not included in kernel/rcu/tree.c
(v2 was: add example from Paul, something that can happen on real HW)
spin_unlock() + spin_lock() together do not form a full memory barrier:
(everything initialized to 0)
CPU1:
a=1;
spin_unlock(&b);
spin_lock(&c);
+ smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
r1=d;
CPU2:
d=1;
smp_mb();
r2=a;
Without the smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), r1==0 && r2==0 would
be possible.
Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
---
include/linux/spinlock.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++
kernel/rcu/tree.h | 12 ------------
2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/spinlock.h b/include/linux/spinlock.h
index d79000e..5075c88 100644
--- a/include/linux/spinlock.h
+++ b/include/linux/spinlock.h
@@ -142,6 +142,22 @@ do { \
#define smp_mb__after_spin_lock() smp_mb()
#endif
+#ifndef smp_mb__after_unlock_lock
+/**
+ * smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() - Provide smp_mb() after unlock+lock
+ *
+ * Place this after a lock-acquisition primitive to guarantee that
+ * an UNLOCK+LOCK pair act as a full barrier. This guarantee applies
+ * if the UNLOCK and LOCK are executed by the same CPU or if the
+ * UNLOCK and LOCK operate on the same lock variable.
+ */
+#ifdef CONFIG_PPC
+#define smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() smp_mb() /* Full ordering for lock. */
+#else /* #ifdef CONFIG_PPC */
+#define smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() do { } while (0)
+#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_PPC */
+#endif
+
/**
* raw_spin_unlock_wait - wait until the spinlock gets unlocked
* @lock: the spinlock in question.
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.h b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
index e99a523..a0cd9ab 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
@@ -687,18 +687,6 @@ static inline void rcu_nocb_q_lengths(struct rcu_data *rdp, long *ql, long *qll)
#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_TRACE */
/*
- * Place this after a lock-acquisition primitive to guarantee that
- * an UNLOCK+LOCK pair act as a full barrier. This guarantee applies
- * if the UNLOCK and LOCK are executed by the same CPU or if the
- * UNLOCK and LOCK operate on the same lock variable.
- */
-#ifdef CONFIG_PPC
-#define smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() smp_mb() /* Full ordering for lock. */
-#else /* #ifdef CONFIG_PPC */
-#define smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() do { } while (0)
-#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_PPC */
-
-/*
* Wrappers for the rcu_node::lock acquire and release.
*
* Because the rcu_nodes form a tree, the tree traversal locking will observe
--
2.5.5
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web