Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] MCS Lock: Barrier corrections

[Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>]

On 11/11/2013 04:17 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
>> You could then augment that with [cmp]xchg_{acquire,release} as
>> appropriate.
>>
>>> +/*
>>>    * In order to acquire the lock, the caller should declare a local node and
>>>    * pass a reference of the node to this function in addition to the lock.
>>>    * If the lock has already been acquired, then this will proceed to spin
>>> @@ -37,15 +62,19 @@ void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
>>>   	node->locked = 0;
>>>   	node->next   = NULL;
>>>
>>> -	prev = xchg(lock, node);
>>> +	/* xchg() provides a memory barrier */
>>> +	prev = xchg_acquire(lock, node);
>>>   	if (likely(prev == NULL)) {
>>>   		/* Lock acquired */
>>>   		return;
>>>   	}
>>>   	ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node;
>>> -	smp_wmb();
>>> -	/* Wait until the lock holder passes the lock down */
>>> -	while (!ACCESS_ONCE(node->locked))
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * Wait until the lock holder passes the lock down.
>>> +	 * Using smp_load_acquire() provides a memory barrier that
>>> +	 * ensures subsequent operations happen after the lock is acquired.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	while (!(smp_load_acquire(&node->locked)))
>>>   		arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
> An alternate implementation is
> 	while (!ACCESS_ONCE(node->locked))
> 		arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
> 	smp_load_acquire(&node->locked);
>
> Leaving the smp_load_acquire at the end to provide appropriate barrier.
> Will that be acceptable?
>
> Tim

I second Tim's opinion. It will be help to have a smp_mb_load_acquire() 
function that provide a memory barrier with load-acquire semantic. I 
don't think we need one for store-release as that will not be in a loop.

Peter, what do you think about adding that to your patch?

-Longman

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>