From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-177.mta1.migadu.com (out-177.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0EF619E7FA for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2024 12:39:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.177 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730378399; cv=none; b=aIoTPEjMVMgame98bdqXh+8e3lCxbUP0eYgjzDRQ5BriQTKDdehkWHbmOMmbzz7C1STATttc0Z1diniHWbYOlN7Q+R9K+YQiS3FQZOMlniOt9fkzcyOYC24tuQosDzicr3Qit+KGH2iu7rc4qKFM0SS9Zp500Gh9K0DGVQ9M+vY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730378399; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jRU/yFn2oW7xkZzVSpjURvbyXNtflsGkn735wYplPN0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=jpthfF2Eoul6rikNoI4hgDFshxvEeBRb8eXTHblfEIJiqPXJwOYHW4QziI+xQRkQoIZzknSWmMdxEVXRJcrOt2LOrFsN8urW/aOnyHKLT+NCxC61BPEdu8zONSA+Fp62GCwhUTF0o2Ut6fHAxo+3tDEj/m7ABaG2Q8bBhy5t83c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=v+g3pbxJ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.177 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="v+g3pbxJ" X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1730378394; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=TRNGizBmS3No09royYQAbT6P9mobmk6sdA5rSdYfEw8=; b=v+g3pbxJitJk62SxyplCt57DrusgyGpM1bvqDyQRLaklC9QaBKdHygl10drdXSH684vIp3 GhqLtspjbXJAhsVs6+Eg3dXOPrCelIw2fTKba838UV++/PfIoP17ybbv7COMfBwYCvs9bV EEXdPyhXFl4pek866OP5Bw/E5sjZu2s= From: Andrew Jones To: kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev Cc: atishp@rivosinc.com, jamestiotio@gmail.com, alexandru.elisei@arm.com, eric.auger@redhat.com Subject: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 1/3] lib/on-cpus: Correct and simplify synchronization Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 13:39:50 +0100 Message-ID: <20241031123948.320652-6-andrew.jones@linux.dev> In-Reply-To: <20241031123948.320652-5-andrew.jones@linux.dev> References: <20241031123948.320652-5-andrew.jones@linux.dev> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT get/put_on_cpu_info() were providing per-cpu locking for the per-cpu on_cpu info, but it's difficult to reason that they're correct since they use test_and_set/clear rather than a typical lock. Just revert to a typical spinlock to simplify it. Also simplify the break case for on_cpu_async() - we don't care if func is NULL, we only care that the cpu is idle. And, finally, add a missing barrier to on_cpu_async(). Before commit 018550041b38 ("arm/arm64: Remove spinlocks from on_cpu_async") the spin_unlock() provided an implicit barrier at the correct location, but moving the release to the more logical location, below the setting of idle, lost it. Fixes: 018550041b38 ("arm/arm64: Remove spinlocks from on_cpu_async") Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones --- lib/on-cpus.c | 36 +++++++++++------------------------- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) diff --git a/lib/on-cpus.c b/lib/on-cpus.c index 892149338419..f6072117fa1b 100644 --- a/lib/on-cpus.c +++ b/lib/on-cpus.c @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ #include #include #include +#include bool cpu0_calls_idle; @@ -18,18 +19,7 @@ struct on_cpu_info { cpumask_t waiters; }; static struct on_cpu_info on_cpu_info[NR_CPUS]; -static cpumask_t on_cpu_info_lock; - -static bool get_on_cpu_info(int cpu) -{ - return !cpumask_test_and_set_cpu(cpu, &on_cpu_info_lock); -} - -static void put_on_cpu_info(int cpu) -{ - int ret = cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(cpu, &on_cpu_info_lock); - assert(ret); -} +static struct spinlock lock; static void __deadlock_check(int cpu, const cpumask_t *waiters, bool *found) { @@ -81,18 +71,14 @@ void do_idle(void) if (cpu == 0) cpu0_calls_idle = true; - set_cpu_idle(cpu, true); - smp_send_event(); - for (;;) { + set_cpu_idle(cpu, true); + smp_send_event(); + while (cpu_idle(cpu)) smp_wait_for_event(); smp_rmb(); on_cpu_info[cpu].func(on_cpu_info[cpu].data); - on_cpu_info[cpu].func = NULL; - smp_wmb(); - set_cpu_idle(cpu, true); - smp_send_event(); } } @@ -110,17 +96,17 @@ void on_cpu_async(int cpu, void (*func)(void *data), void *data) for (;;) { cpu_wait(cpu); - if (get_on_cpu_info(cpu)) { - if ((volatile void *)on_cpu_info[cpu].func == NULL) - break; - put_on_cpu_info(cpu); - } + spin_lock(&lock); + if (cpu_idle(cpu)) + break; + spin_unlock(&lock); } on_cpu_info[cpu].func = func; on_cpu_info[cpu].data = data; + smp_wmb(); set_cpu_idle(cpu, false); - put_on_cpu_info(cpu); + spin_unlock(&lock); smp_send_event(); } -- 2.47.0