From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:27:27 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: spinlock: clarify implementation details of
 arch_spin_lock
In-Reply-To: <1472726820-32959-1-git-send-email-vladimir.murzin@arm.com>
References: <1472726820-32959-1-git-send-email-vladimir.murzin@arm.com>
Message-ID: <20160901112726.GC6721@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:47:00AM +0100, Vladimir Murzin wrote:
> It seems to be quite confusing to see atomic load not being paired
> with atomic store down to arch_spin_lock function. To prevent the same
> questions/patches around this add a comment block explaining what is
> going on there.
> 
> The comment has been stolen from Catalin's reply [1].
> 
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/8/30/127
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@arm.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h |   12 ++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
> index e875a5a..9a2155c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
> @@ -113,6 +113,18 @@ static inline void arch_spin_lock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
>  	 */
>  "	sevl\n"
>  "2:	wfe\n"
> +	/*
> +	 * Don't be confused with atomic load bellow not being paired
> +	 * with atomic store. This is needed because the
> +	 * arch_spin_unlock() code only uses an STLR without an
> +	 * explicit SEV (like we have on AArch32). An event is
> +	 * automatically generated when the exclusive monitor is
> +	 * cleared by STLR. But without setting it with a load
> +	 * exclusive in arch_spin_lock() (even though it does not
> +	 * acquire the lock), there won't be anything to clear, hence
> +	 * no event to be generated. In this case, the WFE would wait
> +	 * indefinitely.
> +	 */

So the purpose of our spin_lock implementation is to provide a spin_lock
primitive to kernel code which follows the semantics of Linux spin locks.
It's not intended to teach people the ARMv8 architecture.

If we comment this (and I don't think your comment is necessarily helpful),
then do we also comment arch_spin_unlock_wait, __cmpwait, the rwlocks, ...?

At some point we have to assume that people attempting to understand the
low-level locking primitives for an architecture will bother to read the
documentation :/ Hell, the ARMv8 ARM even has an example ticket lock
implementation in "K10.3.4 Use of Wait For Event (WFE) and Send Event
(SEV) with locks" that uses this trick.

Will