All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
	Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC 11/12 v1] x86, rwsem: provide __down_write_killable
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:41:56 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160217164156.GU29196@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1454444369-2146-12-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org>

OK, so I have dropped patch 10 and reworked the x86 part to use the same
asm as __down_write uses. Does this look any better?

I am not an expert in inline asm so the way I am doing it might be not
optimal but at least the gerenated code looks sane (no changes for the
regular __down_write).
---
From d9a24cd6d6eb48602b11df56ecc3ea4e223ac18d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:21:51 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] x86, rwsem: provide __down_write_killable

which uses the same fast path as __down_write except it falls back to
call_rwsem_down_write_failed_killable slow path and return -EINTR if
killed. To prevent from code duplication extract the skeleton of
__down_write into a helper macro which just takes the semaphore
and the slow path function to be called.

Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
---
 arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 arch/x86/lib/rwsem.S         |  8 ++++++++
 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h
index d79a218675bc..4c3d90dbe89a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h
@@ -99,21 +99,36 @@ static inline int __down_read_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
 /*
  * lock for writing
  */
+#define ____down_write(sem, slow_path)			\
+({							\
+	long tmp;					\
+	struct rw_semaphore* ret = sem;			\
+	asm volatile("# beginning down_write\n\t"	\
+		     LOCK_PREFIX "  xadd      %1,(%2)\n\t"	\
+		     /* adds 0xffff0001, returns the old value */ \
+		     "  test " __ASM_SEL(%w1,%k1) "," __ASM_SEL(%w1,%k1) "\n\t" \
+		     /* was the active mask 0 before? */\
+		     "  jz        1f\n"			\
+		     "  call " slow_path "\n"		\
+		     "1:\n"				\
+		     "# ending down_write"		\
+		     : "+m" (sem->count), "=d" (tmp), "+a" (ret)	\
+		     : "a" (sem), "1" (RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS) \
+		     : "memory", "cc");			\
+	ret;						\
+})
+
 static inline void __down_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
 {
-	long tmp;
-	asm volatile("# beginning down_write\n\t"
-		     LOCK_PREFIX "  xadd      %1,(%2)\n\t"
-		     /* adds 0xffff0001, returns the old value */
-		     "  test " __ASM_SEL(%w1,%k1) "," __ASM_SEL(%w1,%k1) "\n\t"
-		     /* was the active mask 0 before? */
-		     "  jz        1f\n"
-		     "  call call_rwsem_down_write_failed\n"
-		     "1:\n"
-		     "# ending down_write"
-		     : "+m" (sem->count), "=d" (tmp)
-		     : "a" (sem), "1" (RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS)
-		     : "memory", "cc");
+	____down_write(sem, "call_rwsem_down_write_failed");
+}
+
+static inline int __down_write_killable(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
+{
+	if (IS_ERR(____down_write(sem, "call_rwsem_down_write_failed_killable")))
+		return -EINTR;
+
+	return 0;
 }
 
 /*
diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/rwsem.S b/arch/x86/lib/rwsem.S
index 40027db99140..d1a1397e1fb3 100644
--- a/arch/x86/lib/rwsem.S
+++ b/arch/x86/lib/rwsem.S
@@ -101,6 +101,14 @@ ENTRY(call_rwsem_down_write_failed)
 	ret
 ENDPROC(call_rwsem_down_write_failed)
 
+ENTRY(call_rwsem_down_write_failed_killable)
+	save_common_regs
+	movq %rax,%rdi
+	call rwsem_down_write_failed_killable
+	restore_common_regs
+	ret
+ENDPROC(call_rwsem_down_write_failed_killable)
+
 ENTRY(call_rwsem_wake)
 	/* do nothing if still outstanding active readers */
 	__ASM_HALF_SIZE(dec) %__ASM_HALF_REG(dx)
-- 
2.7.0

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
	Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC 11/12 v1] x86, rwsem: provide __down_write_killable
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:56 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160217164156.GU29196@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1454444369-2146-12-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org>

OK, so I have dropped patch 10 and reworked the x86 part to use the same
asm as __down_write uses. Does this look any better?

I am not an expert in inline asm so the way I am doing it might be not
optimal but at least the gerenated code looks sane (no changes for the
regular __down_write).
---
>From d9a24cd6d6eb48602b11df56ecc3ea4e223ac18d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:21:51 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] x86, rwsem: provide __down_write_killable

which uses the same fast path as __down_write except it falls back to
call_rwsem_down_write_failed_killable slow path and return -EINTR if
killed. To prevent from code duplication extract the skeleton of
__down_write into a helper macro which just takes the semaphore
and the slow path function to be called.

Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
---
 arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 arch/x86/lib/rwsem.S         |  8 ++++++++
 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h
index d79a218675bc..4c3d90dbe89a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h
@@ -99,21 +99,36 @@ static inline int __down_read_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
 /*
  * lock for writing
  */
+#define ____down_write(sem, slow_path)			\
+({							\
+	long tmp;					\
+	struct rw_semaphore* ret = sem;			\
+	asm volatile("# beginning down_write\n\t"	\
+		     LOCK_PREFIX "  xadd      %1,(%2)\n\t"	\
+		     /* adds 0xffff0001, returns the old value */ \
+		     "  test " __ASM_SEL(%w1,%k1) "," __ASM_SEL(%w1,%k1) "\n\t" \
+		     /* was the active mask 0 before? */\
+		     "  jz        1f\n"			\
+		     "  call " slow_path "\n"		\
+		     "1:\n"				\
+		     "# ending down_write"		\
+		     : "+m" (sem->count), "=d" (tmp), "+a" (ret)	\
+		     : "a" (sem), "1" (RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS) \
+		     : "memory", "cc");			\
+	ret;						\
+})
+
 static inline void __down_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
 {
-	long tmp;
-	asm volatile("# beginning down_write\n\t"
-		     LOCK_PREFIX "  xadd      %1,(%2)\n\t"
-		     /* adds 0xffff0001, returns the old value */
-		     "  test " __ASM_SEL(%w1,%k1) "," __ASM_SEL(%w1,%k1) "\n\t"
-		     /* was the active mask 0 before? */
-		     "  jz        1f\n"
-		     "  call call_rwsem_down_write_failed\n"
-		     "1:\n"
-		     "# ending down_write"
-		     : "+m" (sem->count), "=d" (tmp)
-		     : "a" (sem), "1" (RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS)
-		     : "memory", "cc");
+	____down_write(sem, "call_rwsem_down_write_failed");
+}
+
+static inline int __down_write_killable(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
+{
+	if (IS_ERR(____down_write(sem, "call_rwsem_down_write_failed_killable")))
+		return -EINTR;
+
+	return 0;
 }
 
 /*
diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/rwsem.S b/arch/x86/lib/rwsem.S
index 40027db99140..d1a1397e1fb3 100644
--- a/arch/x86/lib/rwsem.S
+++ b/arch/x86/lib/rwsem.S
@@ -101,6 +101,14 @@ ENTRY(call_rwsem_down_write_failed)
 	ret
 ENDPROC(call_rwsem_down_write_failed)
 
+ENTRY(call_rwsem_down_write_failed_killable)
+	save_common_regs
+	movq %rax,%rdi
+	call rwsem_down_write_failed_killable
+	restore_common_regs
+	ret
+ENDPROC(call_rwsem_down_write_failed_killable)
+
 ENTRY(call_rwsem_wake)
 	/* do nothing if still outstanding active readers */
 	__ASM_HALF_SIZE(dec) %__ASM_HALF_REG(dx)
-- 
2.7.0

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
	Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC 11/12 v1] x86, rwsem: provide __down_write_killable
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:56 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160217164156.GU29196@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1454444369-2146-12-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org>

OK, so I have dropped patch 10 and reworked the x86 part to use the same
asm as __down_write uses. Does this look any better?

I am not an expert in inline asm so the way I am doing it might be not
optimal but at least the gerenated code looks sane (no changes for the
regular __down_write).
---
From d9a24cd6d6eb48602b11df56ecc3ea4e223ac18d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:21:51 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] x86, rwsem: provide __down_write_killable

which uses the same fast path as __down_write except it falls back to
call_rwsem_down_write_failed_killable slow path and return -EINTR if
killed. To prevent from code duplication extract the skeleton of
__down_write into a helper macro which just takes the semaphore
and the slow path function to be called.

Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
---
 arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 arch/x86/lib/rwsem.S         |  8 ++++++++
 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h
index d79a218675bc..4c3d90dbe89a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h
@@ -99,21 +99,36 @@ static inline int __down_read_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
 /*
  * lock for writing
  */
+#define ____down_write(sem, slow_path)			\
+({							\
+	long tmp;					\
+	struct rw_semaphore* ret = sem;			\
+	asm volatile("# beginning down_write\n\t"	\
+		     LOCK_PREFIX "  xadd      %1,(%2)\n\t"	\
+		     /* adds 0xffff0001, returns the old value */ \
+		     "  test " __ASM_SEL(%w1,%k1) "," __ASM_SEL(%w1,%k1) "\n\t" \
+		     /* was the active mask 0 before? */\
+		     "  jz        1f\n"			\
+		     "  call " slow_path "\n"		\
+		     "1:\n"				\
+		     "# ending down_write"		\
+		     : "+m" (sem->count), "=d" (tmp), "+a" (ret)	\
+		     : "a" (sem), "1" (RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS) \
+		     : "memory", "cc");			\
+	ret;						\
+})
+
 static inline void __down_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
 {
-	long tmp;
-	asm volatile("# beginning down_write\n\t"
-		     LOCK_PREFIX "  xadd      %1,(%2)\n\t"
-		     /* adds 0xffff0001, returns the old value */
-		     "  test " __ASM_SEL(%w1,%k1) "," __ASM_SEL(%w1,%k1) "\n\t"
-		     /* was the active mask 0 before? */
-		     "  jz        1f\n"
-		     "  call call_rwsem_down_write_failed\n"
-		     "1:\n"
-		     "# ending down_write"
-		     : "+m" (sem->count), "=d" (tmp)
-		     : "a" (sem), "1" (RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS)
-		     : "memory", "cc");
+	____down_write(sem, "call_rwsem_down_write_failed");
+}
+
+static inline int __down_write_killable(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
+{
+	if (IS_ERR(____down_write(sem, "call_rwsem_down_write_failed_killable")))
+		return -EINTR;
+
+	return 0;
 }
 
 /*
diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/rwsem.S b/arch/x86/lib/rwsem.S
index 40027db99140..d1a1397e1fb3 100644
--- a/arch/x86/lib/rwsem.S
+++ b/arch/x86/lib/rwsem.S
@@ -101,6 +101,14 @@ ENTRY(call_rwsem_down_write_failed)
 	ret
 ENDPROC(call_rwsem_down_write_failed)
 
+ENTRY(call_rwsem_down_write_failed_killable)
+	save_common_regs
+	movq %rax,%rdi
+	call rwsem_down_write_failed_killable
+	restore_common_regs
+	ret
+ENDPROC(call_rwsem_down_write_failed_killable)
+
 ENTRY(call_rwsem_wake)
 	/* do nothing if still outstanding active readers */
 	__ASM_HALF_SIZE(dec) %__ASM_HALF_REG(dx)
-- 
2.7.0

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
	Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC 11/12 v1] x86, rwsem: provide __down_write_killable
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:56 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160217164156.GU29196@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
Message-ID: <20160217164156.pyoNPRGF9S1Hr9mmIqgE8bR0pmYINpmAfC2fvyO8Iac@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1454444369-2146-12-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org>

OK, so I have dropped patch 10 and reworked the x86 part to use the same
asm as __down_write uses. Does this look any better?

I am not an expert in inline asm so the way I am doing it might be not
optimal but at least the gerenated code looks sane (no changes for the
regular __down_write).
---

  reply	other threads:[~2016-02-17 16:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-02-02 20:19 [RFC 0/12] introduce down_write_killable for rw_semaphore Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19 ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 01/12] locking, rwsem: get rid of __down_write_nested Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19   ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 02/12] locking, rwsem: drop explicit memory barriers Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19   ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 03/12] locking, rwsem: introduce basis for down_write_killable Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19   ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 04/12] alpha, rwsem: provide __down_write_killable Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19   ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 05/12] ia64, " Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19   ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 06/12] s390, " Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19   ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 07/12] sh, " Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19   ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-03 11:19   ` Sergei Shtylyov
2016-02-03 11:19     ` Sergei Shtylyov
2016-02-03 12:11     ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-03 12:11       ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 08/12] sparc, " Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19   ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 09/12] xtensa, " Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19   ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 10/12] x86, rwsem: simplify __down_write Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19   ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-03  8:10   ` Ingo Molnar
2016-02-03  8:10     ` Ingo Molnar
2016-02-03 12:10     ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-03 12:10       ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-03 16:13     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-03 16:13       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-03 22:34       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-03 22:34         ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-09 14:40       ` David Howells
2016-06-09 14:40         ` David Howells
2016-06-09 17:36         ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-09 17:36           ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-10 16:39           ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-10 16:39             ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 11/12] x86, rwsem: provide __down_write_killable Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19   ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-17 16:41   ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2016-02-17 16:41     ` [RFC 11/12 v1] " Michal Hocko
2016-02-17 16:41     ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-17 16:41     ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 12/12] locking, rwsem: provide down_write_killable Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19   ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-19 12:15 ` [RFC 0/12] introduce down_write_killable for rw_semaphore Michal Hocko
2016-02-19 12:15   ` Michal Hocko
2016-03-09 12:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-03-09 12:18   ` Ingo Molnar
2016-03-09 12:56   ` Michal Hocko
2016-03-09 12:56     ` Michal Hocko
2016-03-09 13:17     ` Ingo Molnar
2016-03-09 13:17       ` Ingo Molnar
2016-03-09 13:28       ` Michal Hocko
2016-03-09 13:28         ` Michal Hocko
2016-03-09 13:43         ` Ingo Molnar
2016-03-09 13:43           ` Ingo Molnar
2016-03-09 14:41           ` Michal Hocko
2016-03-09 14:41             ` Michal Hocko
2016-03-10 10:24             ` Ingo Molnar
2016-03-10 10:24               ` Ingo Molnar

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=20160217164156.GU29196@dhcp22.suse.cz \
    --to=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=chris@zankel.net \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jcmvbkbc@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.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.