From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
manfred@colorfullife.com, dave@stgolabs.net,
paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, will.deacon@arm.com
Cc: boqun.feng@gmail.com, Waiman.Long@hpe.com, tj@kernel.org,
pablo@netfilter.org, kaber@trash.net, davem@davemloft.net,
oleg@redhat.com, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org,
sasha.levin@oracle.com, hofrat@osadl.org,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: [PATCH -v2 3/6] locking: Introduce smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 16:19:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160526142354.218503383@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20160526141922.163198062@infradead.org
[-- Attachment #1: peterz-locking-smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2747 bytes --]
Introduce smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep(), this construct is not
uncommen, but the lack of this barrier is.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
include/linux/compiler.h | 15 ++++++++++-----
ipc/sem.c | 14 ++------------
2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
--- a/include/linux/compiler.h
+++ b/include/linux/compiler.h
@@ -305,6 +305,15 @@ static __always_inline void __write_once
})
/**
+ * smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() - Provide ACQUIRE ordering after a control dependency
+ *
+ * A control dependency provides a LOAD->STORE order, the additional RMB
+ * provides LOAD->LOAD order, together they provide LOAD->{LOAD,STORE} order,
+ * aka. (load)-ACQUIRE.
+ */
+#define smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() smp_rmb()
+
+/**
* cmpwait - compare and wait for a variable to change
* @ptr: pointer to the variable to wait on
* @val: the value it should change from
@@ -331,10 +340,6 @@ static __always_inline void __write_once
*
* Due to C lacking lambda expressions we load the value of *ptr into a
* pre-named variable @VAL to be used in @cond.
- *
- * The control dependency provides a LOAD->STORE order, the additional RMB
- * provides LOAD->LOAD order, together they provide LOAD->{LOAD,STORE} order,
- * aka. ACQUIRE.
*/
#ifndef smp_cond_load_acquire
#define smp_cond_load_acquire(ptr, cond_expr) ({ \
@@ -346,7 +351,7 @@ static __always_inline void __write_once
break; \
cmpwait(__PTR, VAL); \
} \
- smp_rmb(); /* ctrl + rmb := acquire */ \
+ smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep(); \
VAL; \
})
#endif
--- a/ipc/sem.c
+++ b/ipc/sem.c
@@ -260,16 +260,6 @@ static void sem_rcu_free(struct rcu_head
}
/*
- * spin_unlock_wait() and !spin_is_locked() are not memory barriers, they
- * are only control barriers.
- * The code must pair with spin_unlock(&sem->lock) or
- * spin_unlock(&sem_perm.lock), thus just the control barrier is insufficient.
- *
- * smp_rmb() is sufficient, as writes cannot pass the control barrier.
- */
-#define ipc_smp_acquire__after_spin_is_unlocked() smp_rmb()
-
-/*
* Wait until all currently ongoing simple ops have completed.
* Caller must own sem_perm.lock.
* New simple ops cannot start, because simple ops first check
@@ -292,7 +282,7 @@ static void sem_wait_array(struct sem_ar
sem = sma->sem_base + i;
spin_unlock_wait(&sem->lock);
}
- ipc_smp_acquire__after_spin_is_unlocked();
+ smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep();
}
/*
@@ -350,7 +340,7 @@ static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_ar
* complex_count++;
* spin_unlock(sem_perm.lock);
*/
- ipc_smp_acquire__after_spin_is_unlocked();
+ smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep();
/*
* Now repeat the test of complex_count:
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-26 14:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-26 14:19 [PATCH -v2 0/6] spin_unlock_wait borkage Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-26 14:19 ` [PATCH -v2 1/6] locking: Replace smp_cond_acquire with smp_cond_load_acquire Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-26 14:19 ` [PATCH -v2 2/6] locking: Introduce cmpwait() Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-26 14:19 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2016-05-26 14:19 ` [PATCH -v2 4/6] locking, arch: Update spin_unlock_wait() Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-26 21:10 ` Chris Metcalf
2016-05-27 9:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-27 19:34 ` Chris Metcalf
2016-05-30 9:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-27 6:46 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2016-05-27 9:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-26 14:19 ` [PATCH -v2 5/6] locking: Update spin_unlock_wait users Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-26 14:19 ` [PATCH -v2 6/6] locking,netfilter: Fix nf_conntrack_lock() Peter Zijlstra
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=20160526142354.218503383@infradead.org \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=Waiman.Long@hpe.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=hofrat@osadl.org \
--cc=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=pablo@netfilter.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=sasha.levin@oracle.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).