From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
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 1/2] arm64: Remove smp_mb() from arch_spin_is_locked()
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 17:54:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180327165423.GF18435@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180326141436.GA11739@andrea>
Hi Andrea,
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 04:14:36PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:57:05AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 12:37:21PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > Commit 38b850a73034f ("arm64: spinlock: order spin_{is_locked,unlock_wait}
> > > against local locks") added an smp_mb() to arch_spin_is_locked(), in order
> > > "to ensure that the lock value is always loaded after any other locks have
> > > been taken by the current CPU", and reported one example (the "insane case"
> > > in ipc/sem.c) relying on such guarantee.
> > >
> > > It is however understood (and not documented) that spin_is_locked() is not
> > > required to ensure such an ordering guarantee, guarantee that is currently
> > > _not_ provided by all implementations/architectures, and that callers rely-
> > > ing on such ordering should instead insert suitable memory barriers before
> > > acting on the result of spin_is_locked().
> > >
> > > Following a recent auditing[1] of the callsites of {,raw_}spin_is_locked()
> > > revealing that none of these callers are relying on the ordering guarantee
> > > anymore, this commit removes the leading smp_mb() from this primitive thus
> > > effectively reverting 38b850a73034f.
> > >
> > > [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151981440005264&w=2
> >
> > What is patch 2/2 in this series? I couldn't find it in the archive.
>
> 2/2 is this change for powerpc:
>
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=152206068707522&w=2
>
> >
> > Assuming that patch doesn't do it, please can you remove the comment
> > about spin_is_locked from mutex_is_locked?
>
> I ended up with the patch below but I suspect that it's not what you had
> in mind; please let me know if you'd like me to add it into this series.
That's exactly what I meant! I think you can remove the #ifndef
queued_spin_is_locked in the same patch. If you do that:
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
for the arm64 patch and the mythical core patch we've been discussing.
Will
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-27 16:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-26 10:37 [PATCH for-4.17 1/2] arm64: Remove smp_mb() from arch_spin_is_locked() Andrea Parri
2018-03-26 10:57 ` Will Deacon
2018-03-26 14:14 ` Andrea Parri
2018-03-27 16:54 ` Will Deacon [this message]
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=20180327165423.GF18435@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--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.