From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932783AbcFBL55 (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2016 07:57:57 -0400 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:50827 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932678AbcFBL5x (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2016 07:57:53 -0400 Message-Id: <20160602115438.899627568@infradead.org> User-Agent: quilt/0.61-1 Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2016 13:51:59 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra 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, peterz@infradead.org Subject: [PATCH -v4 2/7] locking: Introduce smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep References: <20160602115157.249037373@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Disposition: inline; filename=peterz-locking-smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep.patch Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Introduce smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep(), this construct is not uncommen, but the lack of this barrier is. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) --- include/linux/compiler.h | 17 ++++++++++++----- ipc/sem.c | 14 ++------------ 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) --- a/include/linux/compiler.h +++ b/include/linux/compiler.h @@ -305,6 +305,17 @@ 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. + * + * Architectures that do not do load speculation can have this be barrier(). + */ +#define smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() smp_rmb() + +/** * smp_cond_load_acquire() - (Spin) wait for cond with ACQUIRE ordering * @ptr: pointer to the variable to wait on * @cond: boolean expression to wait for @@ -314,10 +325,6 @@ 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) ({ \ @@ -329,7 +336,7 @@ static __always_inline void __write_once break; \ cpu_relax(); \ } \ - 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: