Message-ID: <1380557440.14213.6.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] MCS Lock: Restructure the MCS lock defines and
 locking code into its own file
From: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>,
        Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 09:10:40 -0700
In-Reply-To: <52499E13.8050109@hp.com>
References: <cover.1380144003.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
	 <1380147049.3467.67.camel@schen9-DESK>
	 <20130927152953.GA4464@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	 <1380310733.3467.118.camel@schen9-DESK>
	 <20130927203858.GB9093@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	 <1380322005.3467.186.camel@schen9-DESK>
	 <20130927230137.GE9093@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	 <CAGQ1y=7YbB_BouYZVJwAZ9crkSMLVCxg8hoqcO_7sXHRrZ90_A@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20130928021947.GF9093@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	 <CAGQ1y=5RnRsWdOe5CX6WYEJ2vUCFtHpj+PNC85NuEDH4bMdb0w@mail.gmail.com>
	 <52499E13.8050109@hp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1437
Lines: 37

On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 11:51 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 09/28/2013 12:34 AM, Jason Low wrote:
> >> Also, below is what the mcs_spin_lock() and mcs_spin_unlock()
> >> functions would look like after applying the proposed changes.
> >>
> >> 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. No need to set node->locked since it
> >> won't be used */
> >>                  return;
> >>          }
> >>          ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node;
> >>          /* Wait until the lock holder passes the lock down */
> >>          while (!ACCESS_ONCE(node->locked))
> >>                  arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
> >>          smp_mb();
> 
> I wonder if a memory barrier is really needed here.

If the compiler can reorder the while (!ACCESS_ONCE(node->locked)) check
so that the check occurs after an instruction in the critical section,
then the barrier may be necessary.

--
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/