Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 22 Oct 2021 10:23:02 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com>,
        Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
        Christoph =?utf-8?Q?M=C3=BCllner?= <christophm30@gmail.com>,
        Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking: Generic ticket lock
Message-ID: <YXKC9qh+evVmUuLI@FVFF77S0Q05N>
References: <YXFli3mzMishRpEq@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YXFli3mzMishRpEq@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Peter,

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 03:05:15PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> +static __always_inline void ticket_lock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
> +{
> +	u32 val = atomic_fetch_add_acquire(ONE_TICKET, lock);

I wonder, should these atomics be arch_atomic_*(), in case an arch_ or raw_
lock is used in noinstr code? The plain atomic_*() forms can have explicit
inline instrumentation.

I haven't seen any issues with qspinlock so far, and that also uses the
(instrumented) atomics, so maybe that's not actually a problem, but I'm not
sure what we intend here w.r.t.  instrumentability.

Thanks,
Mark.