All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-4.17 2/2] powerpc: Remove smp_mb() from arch_spin_is_locked()
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 12:25:21 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180327102521.GA7347@andrea> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1522109216.7364.30.camel@kernel.crashing.org>

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:06:56AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-03-26 at 12:37 +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > Commit 51d7d5205d338 ("powerpc: Add smp_mb() to arch_spin_is_locked()")
> > added an smp_mb() to arch_spin_is_locked(), in order to ensure that
> > 
> > 	Thread 0			Thread 1
> > 
> > 	spin_lock(A);			spin_lock(B);
> > 	r0 = spin_is_locked(B)		r1 = spin_is_locked(A);
> > 
> > never ends up with r0 = r1 = 0, and reported one example (in ipc/sem.c)
> > relying on such guarantee.
> > 
> > It's however understood (and undocumented) that spin_is_locked() is not
> > required to ensure such ordering guarantee,
> 
> Shouldn't we start by documenting it ?

I do sympathize with your concern about the documentation! ;) The patch in
[1] was my (re)action to this concern; the sort of the patch is unclear to
me by this time (and I'm not aware of other proposals in this respect).


> 
> >  guarantee that is currently
> > _not_ provided by all implementations/arch, and that callers relying on
> > such ordering should instead use suitable memory barriers before acting
> > on the result of spin_is_locked().
> > 
> > Following a recent auditing[1] of the callers of {,raw_}spin_is_locked()
> > revealing that none of them are relying on this guarantee anymore, this
> > commit removes the leading smp_mb() from the primitive thus effectively
> > reverting 51d7d5205d338.
> 
> I would rather wait until it is properly documented. Debugging that IPC
> problem took a *LOT* of time and energy, I wouldn't want these issues
> to come and bite us again.

I understand. And I'm grateful for this debugging as well as for the (IMO)
excellent account of it you provided in 51d7d5205d338.

Said this ;) I cannot except myself from saying that I would probably have
resisted that solution (adding an smp_mb() in my arch_spin_is_locked), and
instead "blamed"/suggested that caller to fix his memory ordering...

  Andrea


> 
> > [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151981440005264&w=2
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
> > Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
> > Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
> > Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> > ---
> >  arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h | 1 -
> >  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> > index b9ebc3085fb79..ecc141e3f1a73 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> > @@ -67,7 +67,6 @@ static __always_inline int arch_spin_value_unlocked(arch_spinlock_t lock)
> >  
> >  static inline int arch_spin_is_locked(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
> >  {
> > -	smp_mb();
> >  	return !arch_spin_value_unlocked(*lock);
> >  }
> >  

  reply	other threads:[~2018-03-27 10:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-03-26 10:37 [PATCH for-4.17 2/2] powerpc: Remove smp_mb() from arch_spin_is_locked() Andrea Parri
2018-03-27  0:06 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2018-03-27 10:25   ` Andrea Parri [this message]
2018-03-27 11:33     ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2018-03-27 13:13       ` Andrea Parri
2018-03-27 21:51         ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2018-03-28  9:17           ` Andrea Parri
2018-03-28  5:25     ` Michael Ellerman
2018-03-28 11:04       ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-03-28 11:08         ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-04 10:28           ` Michael Ellerman
2018-04-04 10:28         ` Michael Ellerman

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=20180327102521.GA7347@andrea \
    --to=andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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.