From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org>,
torvalds@osdl.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Horrible regression with -CURRENT from "Don't busy-lock-loop in preemptable spinlocks" patch
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:33:01 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050117143301.GA10341@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050116230922.7274f9a2.akpm@osdl.org>
* Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
> > +BUILD_LOCK_OPS(spin, spinlock_t, spin_is_locked);
> > +BUILD_LOCK_OPS(read, rwlock_t, rwlock_is_locked);
> > +BUILD_LOCK_OPS(write, rwlock_t, spin_is_locked);
>
> If you replace the last line with
>
> BUILD_LOCK_OPS(write, rwlock_t, rwlock_is_locked);
>
> does it help?
this is not enough - the proper solution should be the patch below,
which i sent earlier today as a reply to Paul Mackerras' comments.
Ingo
--
the first fix is that there was no compiler warning on x86 because it
uses macros - i fixed this by changing the spinlock field to be
'->slock'. (we could also use inline functions to get type protection, i
chose this solution because it was the easiest to do.)
the second fix is to split rwlock_is_locked() into two functions:
+/**
+ * read_is_locked - would read_trylock() fail?
+ * @lock: the rwlock in question.
+ */
+#define read_is_locked(x) (atomic_read((atomic_t *)&(x)->lock) <= 0)
+
+/**
+ * write_is_locked - would write_trylock() fail?
+ * @lock: the rwlock in question.
+ */
+#define write_is_locked(x) ((x)->lock != RW_LOCK_BIAS)
this canonical naming of them also enabled the elimination of the newly
added 'is_locked_fn' argument to the BUILD_LOCK_OPS macro.
the third change was to change the other user of rwlock_is_locked(), and
to put a migration helper there: architectures that dont have
read/write_is_locked defined yet will get a #warning message but the
build will succeed. (except if PREEMPT is enabled - there we really
need.)
compile and boot-tested on x86, on SMP and UP, PREEMPT and !PREEMPT.
Non-x86 architectures should work fine, except PREEMPT+SMP builds which
will need the read_is_locked()/write_is_locked() definitions.
!PREEMPT+SMP builds will work fine and will produce a #warning.
Ingo
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
--- linux/kernel/spinlock.c.orig
+++ linux/kernel/spinlock.c
@@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(_write_lock);
* (We do this in a function because inlining it would be excessive.)
*/
-#define BUILD_LOCK_OPS(op, locktype, is_locked_fn) \
+#define BUILD_LOCK_OPS(op, locktype) \
void __lockfunc _##op##_lock(locktype *lock) \
{ \
preempt_disable(); \
@@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ void __lockfunc _##op##_lock(locktype *l
preempt_enable(); \
if (!(lock)->break_lock) \
(lock)->break_lock = 1; \
- while (is_locked_fn(lock) && (lock)->break_lock) \
+ while (op##_is_locked(lock) && (lock)->break_lock) \
cpu_relax(); \
preempt_disable(); \
} \
@@ -205,7 +205,7 @@ unsigned long __lockfunc _##op##_lock_ir
preempt_enable(); \
if (!(lock)->break_lock) \
(lock)->break_lock = 1; \
- while (is_locked_fn(lock) && (lock)->break_lock) \
+ while (op##_is_locked(lock) && (lock)->break_lock) \
cpu_relax(); \
preempt_disable(); \
} \
@@ -246,9 +246,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(_##op##_lock_bh)
* _[spin|read|write]_lock_irqsave()
* _[spin|read|write]_lock_bh()
*/
-BUILD_LOCK_OPS(spin, spinlock_t, spin_is_locked);
-BUILD_LOCK_OPS(read, rwlock_t, rwlock_is_locked);
-BUILD_LOCK_OPS(write, rwlock_t, spin_is_locked);
+BUILD_LOCK_OPS(spin, spinlock_t);
+BUILD_LOCK_OPS(read, rwlock_t);
+BUILD_LOCK_OPS(write, rwlock_t);
#endif /* CONFIG_PREEMPT */
--- linux/include/asm-i386/spinlock.h.orig
+++ linux/include/asm-i386/spinlock.h
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ asmlinkage int printk(const char * fmt,
*/
typedef struct {
- volatile unsigned int lock;
+ volatile unsigned int slock;
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK
unsigned magic;
#endif
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ typedef struct {
* We make no fairness assumptions. They have a cost.
*/
-#define spin_is_locked(x) (*(volatile signed char *)(&(x)->lock) <= 0)
+#define spin_is_locked(x) (*(volatile signed char *)(&(x)->slock) <= 0)
#define spin_unlock_wait(x) do { barrier(); } while(spin_is_locked(x))
#define spin_lock_string \
@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ typedef struct {
#define spin_unlock_string \
"movb $1,%0" \
- :"=m" (lock->lock) : : "memory"
+ :"=m" (lock->slock) : : "memory"
static inline void _raw_spin_unlock(spinlock_t *lock)
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ static inline void _raw_spin_unlock(spin
#define spin_unlock_string \
"xchgb %b0, %1" \
- :"=q" (oldval), "=m" (lock->lock) \
+ :"=q" (oldval), "=m" (lock->slock) \
:"0" (oldval) : "memory"
static inline void _raw_spin_unlock(spinlock_t *lock)
@@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ static inline int _raw_spin_trylock(spin
char oldval;
__asm__ __volatile__(
"xchgb %b0,%1"
- :"=q" (oldval), "=m" (lock->lock)
+ :"=q" (oldval), "=m" (lock->slock)
:"0" (0) : "memory");
return oldval > 0;
}
@@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ static inline void _raw_spin_lock(spinlo
#endif
__asm__ __volatile__(
spin_lock_string
- :"=m" (lock->lock) : : "memory");
+ :"=m" (lock->slock) : : "memory");
}
static inline void _raw_spin_lock_flags (spinlock_t *lock, unsigned long flags)
@@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ static inline void _raw_spin_lock_flags
#endif
__asm__ __volatile__(
spin_lock_string_flags
- :"=m" (lock->lock) : "r" (flags) : "memory");
+ :"=m" (lock->slock) : "r" (flags) : "memory");
}
/*
@@ -186,7 +186,17 @@ typedef struct {
#define rwlock_init(x) do { *(x) = RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED; } while(0)
-#define rwlock_is_locked(x) ((x)->lock != RW_LOCK_BIAS)
+/**
+ * read_is_locked - would read_trylock() fail?
+ * @lock: the rwlock in question.
+ */
+#define read_is_locked(x) (atomic_read((atomic_t *)&(x)->lock) <= 0)
+
+/**
+ * write_is_locked - would write_trylock() fail?
+ * @lock: the rwlock in question.
+ */
+#define write_is_locked(x) ((x)->lock != RW_LOCK_BIAS)
/*
* On x86, we implement read-write locks as a 32-bit counter
--- linux/kernel/exit.c.orig
+++ linux/kernel/exit.c
@@ -861,8 +861,12 @@ task_t fastcall *next_thread(const task_
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
if (!p->sighand)
BUG();
+#ifndef write_is_locked
+# warning please implement read_is_locked()/write_is_locked()!
+# define write_is_locked rwlock_is_locked
+#endif
if (!spin_is_locked(&p->sighand->siglock) &&
- !rwlock_is_locked(&tasklist_lock))
+ !write_is_locked(&tasklist_lock))
BUG();
#endif
return pid_task(p->pids[PIDTYPE_TGID].pid_list.next, PIDTYPE_TGID);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-01-17 14:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 87+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-01-17 5:50 Horrible regression with -CURRENT from "Don't busy-lock-loop in preemptable spinlocks" patch Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-17 7:09 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-17 7:33 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-17 7:50 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-01-17 8:00 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-17 14:33 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2005-01-18 1:47 ` Darren Williams
2005-01-18 1:47 ` Darren Williams
2005-01-18 4:28 ` Darren Williams
2005-01-18 4:28 ` Darren Williams
2005-01-18 7:08 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-18 7:08 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-19 0:14 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-19 0:14 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-19 8:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-19 8:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-19 9:18 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-19 9:18 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-19 9:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-19 9:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-19 21:43 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-01-19 21:43 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-01-20 2:34 ` [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1] Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-20 2:34 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-20 3:01 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-20 3:01 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-20 3:18 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-20 3:18 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-20 3:33 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-20 3:33 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-20 8:59 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-20 8:59 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-20 13:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 13:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 15:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 15:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:08 ` [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:11 ` [patch 2/3] spinlock fix #2: generalize [spin|rw]lock yielding Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:12 ` [patch 3/3] spinlock fix #3: type-checking spinlock primitives, x86 Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:14 ` [patch] stricter type-checking rwlock " Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:16 ` [patch] minor spinlock cleanups Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:31 ` [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 17:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 17:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 17:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 17:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 18:22 ` [patch, BK-curr] nonintrusive spin-polling loop in kernel/spinlock.c Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 18:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 18:25 ` [patch, BK-curr] rename 'lock' to 'slock' in asm-i386/spinlock.h Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 18:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 23:45 ` [patch, BK-curr] nonintrusive spin-polling loop in kernel/spinlock.c Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 23:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:44 ` [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:05 ` [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1] Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 17:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 17:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 17:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 17:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 5:49 ` Horrible regression with -CURRENT from "Don't busy-lock-loop in preemptable spinlocks" patch Grant Grundler
2005-01-20 5:49 ` Grant Grundler
2005-01-17 7:38 ` [PATCH] __get_cpu_var should use __smp_processor_id() not smp_processor_id() Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-17 14:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-17 18:53 ` Chris Wedgwood
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=20050117143301.GA10341@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=cw@f00f.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.