Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754541Ab3I0UjK (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:39:10 -0400 Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.139]:43037 "EHLO e9.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753349Ab3I0UjH (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:39:07 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 13:38:58 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Tim Chen Cc: Waiman Long , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , Alex Shi , Andi Kleen , Michel Lespinasse , Davidlohr Bueso , Matthew R Wilcox , Dave Hansen , Peter Zijlstra , Rik van Riel , Peter Hurley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] MCS Lock: Restructure the MCS lock defines and locking code into its own file Message-ID: <20130927203858.GB9093@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <1380147049.3467.67.camel@schen9-DESK> <20130927152953.GA4464@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1380310733.3467.118.camel@schen9-DESK> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1380310733.3467.118.camel@schen9-DESK> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: No X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13092720-7182-0000-0000-0000088E426F Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4161 Lines: 128 On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:38:53PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote: > On Fri, 2013-09-27 at 08:29 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 03:10:49PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote: > > > We will need the MCS lock code for doing optimistic spinning for rwsem. > > > Extracting the MCS code from mutex.c and put into its own file allow us > > > to reuse this code easily for rwsem. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tim Chen > > > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso > > > --- > > > include/linux/mcslock.h | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > kernel/mutex.c | 58 +++++----------------------------------------- > > > 2 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) > > > create mode 100644 include/linux/mcslock.h > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/mcslock.h b/include/linux/mcslock.h > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 0000000..20fd3f0 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/include/linux/mcslock.h > > > @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ > > > +/* > > > + * MCS lock defines > > > + * > > > + * This file contains the main data structure and API definitions of MCS lock. > > > + */ > > > +#ifndef __LINUX_MCSLOCK_H > > > +#define __LINUX_MCSLOCK_H > > > + > > > +struct mcs_spin_node { > > > + struct mcs_spin_node *next; > > > + int locked; /* 1 if lock acquired */ > > > +}; > > > + > > > +/* > > > + * We don't inline mcs_spin_lock() so that perf can correctly account for the > > > + * time spent in this lock function. > > > + */ > > > +static noinline > > > +void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spin_node **lock, struct mcs_spin_node *node) > > > +{ > > > + struct mcs_spin_node *prev; > > > + > > > + /* Init node */ > > > + node->locked = 0; > > > + node->next = NULL; > > > + > > > + prev = xchg(lock, node); > > > + if (likely(prev == NULL)) { > > > + /* Lock acquired */ > > > + node->locked = 1; > > > + return; > > > + } > > > + ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node; > > > + smp_wmb(); > > BTW, is the above memory barrier necessary? It seems like the xchg > instruction already provided a memory barrier. > > Now if we made the changes that Jason suggested: > > > /* Init node */ > - node->locked = 0; > node->next = NULL; > > prev = xchg(lock, node); > if (likely(prev == NULL)) { > /* Lock acquired */ > - node->locked = 1; > return; > } > + node->locked = 0; > ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node; > smp_wmb(); > > We are probably still okay as other cpus do not read the value of > node->locked, which is a local variable. I don't immediately see the need for the smp_wmb() in either case. > Tim > > > > + /* Wait until the lock holder passes the lock down */ > > > + while (!ACCESS_ONCE(node->locked)) > > > + arch_mutex_cpu_relax(); However, you do need a full memory barrier here in order to ensure that you see the effects of the previous lock holder's critical section. Thanx, Paul > > > +} > > > + > > > +static void mcs_spin_unlock(struct mcs_spin_node **lock, struct mcs_spin_node *node) > > > +{ > > > + struct mcs_spin_node *next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next); > > > + > > > + if (likely(!next)) { > > > + /* > > > + * Release the lock by setting it to NULL > > > + */ > > > + if (cmpxchg(lock, node, NULL) == node) > > > + return; > > > + /* Wait until the next pointer is set */ > > > + while (!(next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next))) > > > + arch_mutex_cpu_relax(); > > > + } > > > + ACCESS_ONCE(next->locked) = 1; > > > + smp_wmb(); > > > > Shouldn't the memory barrier precede the "ACCESS_ONCE(next->locked) = 1;"? > > Maybe in an "else" clause of the prior "if" statement, given that the > > cmpxchg() does it otherwise. > > > > Otherwise, in the case where the "if" conditionn is false, the critical > > section could bleed out past the unlock. > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/