All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, peterz@infradead.org,
	mingo@kernel.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
	paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Subject: [PATCH 04/10] locking/qspinlock: Use atomic_cond_read_acquire
Date: Thu,  5 Apr 2018 17:59:01 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1522947547-24081-5-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1522947547-24081-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com>

Rather than dig into the counter field of the atomic_t inside the
qspinlock structure so that we can call smp_cond_load_acquire, use
atomic_cond_read_acquire instead, which operates on the atomic_t
directly.

Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
---
 kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 12 ++++++------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
index cdfa7b7328a8..291e1526d27b 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
@@ -331,8 +331,8 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
 		 * barriers.
 		 */
 		if (val & _Q_LOCKED_MASK)
-			smp_cond_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter,
-					      !(VAL & _Q_LOCKED_MASK));
+			atomic_cond_read_acquire(&lock->val,
+						 !(VAL & _Q_LOCKED_MASK));
 		/*
 		 * take ownership and clear the pending bit.
 		 *
@@ -433,8 +433,8 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
 	 *
 	 * The PV pv_wait_head_or_lock function, if active, will acquire
 	 * the lock and return a non-zero value. So we have to skip the
-	 * smp_cond_load_acquire() call. As the next PV queue head hasn't been
-	 * designated yet, there is no way for the locked value to become
+	 * atomic_cond_read_acquire() call. As the next PV queue head hasn't
+	 * been designated yet, there is no way for the locked value to become
 	 * _Q_SLOW_VAL. So both the set_locked() and the
 	 * atomic_cmpxchg_relaxed() calls will be safe.
 	 *
@@ -444,7 +444,7 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
 	if ((val = pv_wait_head_or_lock(lock, node)))
 		goto locked;
 
-	val = smp_cond_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter, !(VAL & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK));
+	val = atomic_cond_read_acquire(&lock->val, !(VAL & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK));
 
 locked:
 	/*
@@ -461,7 +461,7 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
 	/* In the PV case we might already have _Q_LOCKED_VAL set */
 	if ((val & _Q_TAIL_MASK) == tail) {
 		/*
-		 * The smp_cond_load_acquire() call above has provided the
+		 * The atomic_cond_read_acquire() call above has provided the
 		 * necessary acquire semantics required for locking.
 		 */
 		old = atomic_cmpxchg_relaxed(&lock->val, val, _Q_LOCKED_VAL);
-- 
2.1.4

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 04/10] locking/qspinlock: Use atomic_cond_read_acquire
Date: Thu,  5 Apr 2018 17:59:01 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1522947547-24081-5-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1522947547-24081-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com>

Rather than dig into the counter field of the atomic_t inside the
qspinlock structure so that we can call smp_cond_load_acquire, use
atomic_cond_read_acquire instead, which operates on the atomic_t
directly.

Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
---
 kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 12 ++++++------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
index cdfa7b7328a8..291e1526d27b 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
@@ -331,8 +331,8 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
 		 * barriers.
 		 */
 		if (val & _Q_LOCKED_MASK)
-			smp_cond_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter,
-					      !(VAL & _Q_LOCKED_MASK));
+			atomic_cond_read_acquire(&lock->val,
+						 !(VAL & _Q_LOCKED_MASK));
 		/*
 		 * take ownership and clear the pending bit.
 		 *
@@ -433,8 +433,8 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
 	 *
 	 * The PV pv_wait_head_or_lock function, if active, will acquire
 	 * the lock and return a non-zero value. So we have to skip the
-	 * smp_cond_load_acquire() call. As the next PV queue head hasn't been
-	 * designated yet, there is no way for the locked value to become
+	 * atomic_cond_read_acquire() call. As the next PV queue head hasn't
+	 * been designated yet, there is no way for the locked value to become
 	 * _Q_SLOW_VAL. So both the set_locked() and the
 	 * atomic_cmpxchg_relaxed() calls will be safe.
 	 *
@@ -444,7 +444,7 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
 	if ((val = pv_wait_head_or_lock(lock, node)))
 		goto locked;
 
-	val = smp_cond_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter, !(VAL & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK));
+	val = atomic_cond_read_acquire(&lock->val, !(VAL & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK));
 
 locked:
 	/*
@@ -461,7 +461,7 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
 	/* In the PV case we might already have _Q_LOCKED_VAL set */
 	if ((val & _Q_TAIL_MASK) == tail) {
 		/*
-		 * The smp_cond_load_acquire() call above has provided the
+		 * The atomic_cond_read_acquire() call above has provided the
 		 * necessary acquire semantics required for locking.
 		 */
 		old = atomic_cmpxchg_relaxed(&lock->val, val, _Q_LOCKED_VAL);
-- 
2.1.4

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-04-05 17:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 94+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-04-05 16:58 [PATCH 00/10] kernel/locking: qspinlock improvements Will Deacon
2018-04-05 16:58 ` Will Deacon
2018-04-05 16:58 ` [PATCH 01/10] locking/qspinlock: Don't spin on pending->locked transition in slowpath Will Deacon
2018-04-05 16:58   ` Will Deacon
2018-04-05 16:58 ` [PATCH 02/10] locking/qspinlock: Remove unbounded cmpxchg loop from locking slowpath Will Deacon
2018-04-05 16:58   ` Will Deacon
2018-04-05 17:07   ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-05 17:07     ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-06 15:08     ` Will Deacon
2018-04-06 15:08       ` Will Deacon
2018-04-05 17:13   ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-05 17:13     ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-05 21:16   ` Waiman Long
2018-04-05 21:16     ` Waiman Long
2018-04-06 15:08     ` Will Deacon
2018-04-06 15:08       ` Will Deacon
2018-04-06 20:50   ` Waiman Long
2018-04-06 20:50     ` Waiman Long
2018-04-06 21:09     ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-06 21:09       ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-07  8:47       ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-07  8:47         ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-07 23:37         ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-07 23:37           ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-09 10:58         ` Will Deacon
2018-04-09 10:58           ` Will Deacon
2018-04-07  9:07     ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-07  9:07       ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-09 10:58     ` Will Deacon
2018-04-09 10:58       ` Will Deacon
2018-04-09 14:54       ` Will Deacon
2018-04-09 14:54         ` Will Deacon
2018-04-09 15:54         ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-09 15:54           ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-09 17:19           ` Will Deacon
2018-04-09 17:19             ` Will Deacon
2018-04-10  9:35             ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-10  9:35               ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-20 16:08             ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-20 16:08               ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-20 16:22               ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-20 16:22                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-09 19:33         ` Waiman Long
2018-04-09 19:33           ` Waiman Long
2018-04-09 17:55       ` Waiman Long
2018-04-09 17:55         ` Waiman Long
2018-04-10 13:49   ` Sasha Levin
2018-04-10 13:49     ` Sasha Levin
2018-04-05 16:59 ` [PATCH 03/10] locking/qspinlock: Kill cmpxchg loop when claiming lock from head of queue Will Deacon
2018-04-05 16:59   ` Will Deacon
2018-04-05 17:19   ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-05 17:19     ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-06 10:54     ` Will Deacon
2018-04-06 10:54       ` Will Deacon
2018-04-05 16:59 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2018-04-05 16:59   ` [PATCH 04/10] locking/qspinlock: Use atomic_cond_read_acquire Will Deacon
2018-04-05 16:59 ` [PATCH 05/10] locking/mcs: Use smp_cond_load_acquire() in mcs spin loop Will Deacon
2018-04-05 16:59   ` Will Deacon
2018-04-05 16:59 ` [PATCH 06/10] barriers: Introduce smp_cond_load_relaxed and atomic_cond_read_relaxed Will Deacon
2018-04-05 16:59   ` Will Deacon
2018-04-05 17:22   ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-05 17:22     ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-06 10:55     ` Will Deacon
2018-04-06 10:55       ` Will Deacon
2018-04-05 16:59 ` [PATCH 07/10] locking/qspinlock: Use smp_cond_load_relaxed to wait for next node Will Deacon
2018-04-05 16:59   ` Will Deacon
2018-04-05 16:59 ` [PATCH 08/10] locking/qspinlock: Merge struct __qspinlock into struct qspinlock Will Deacon
2018-04-05 16:59   ` Will Deacon
2018-04-07  5:23   ` Boqun Feng
2018-04-07  5:23     ` Boqun Feng
2018-04-05 16:59 ` [PATCH 09/10] locking/qspinlock: Make queued_spin_unlock use smp_store_release Will Deacon
2018-04-05 16:59   ` Will Deacon
2018-04-05 16:59 ` [PATCH 10/10] locking/qspinlock: Elide back-to-back RELEASE operations with smp_wmb() Will Deacon
2018-04-05 16:59   ` Will Deacon
2018-04-05 17:28   ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-05 17:28     ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-06 11:34     ` Will Deacon
2018-04-06 11:34       ` Will Deacon
2018-04-06 13:05       ` Andrea Parri
2018-04-06 13:05         ` Andrea Parri
2018-04-06 15:27         ` Will Deacon
2018-04-06 15:27           ` Will Deacon
2018-04-06 15:49           ` Andrea Parri
2018-04-06 15:49             ` Andrea Parri
2018-04-07  5:47   ` Boqun Feng
2018-04-07  5:47     ` Boqun Feng
2018-04-09 10:47     ` Will Deacon
2018-04-09 10:47       ` Will Deacon
2018-04-06 13:22 ` [PATCH 00/10] kernel/locking: qspinlock improvements Andrea Parri
2018-04-06 13:22   ` Andrea Parri
2018-04-11 10:20   ` Catalin Marinas
2018-04-11 10:20     ` Catalin Marinas
2018-04-11 15:39     ` Andrea Parri
2018-04-11 15:39       ` Andrea Parri

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1522947547-24081-5-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com \
    --to=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.