Re: [patch] bitops: lock bitops

[Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>]

On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 04:06:31PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 05:14 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Here is a set of patches that aims to mitigate some of the lock_page
> > overhead on powerpc introduced in the fault path by another set.
> > Fortunately it also improves various other things too :)
> 
>  Some nits...
> 
> > +static __inline__ void clear_bit_unlock(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long old;
> > +	unsigned long mask = BITOP_MASK(nr);
> > +	unsigned long *p = ((unsigned long *)addr) + BITOP_WORD(nr);
> > +
> > +	__asm__ __volatile__(
> > +	LWSYNC_ON_SMP
> > +"1:"	PPC_LLARX "%0,0,%3	# clear_bit_unlock\n"
> > +	"andc	%0,%0,%2\n"
> > +	PPC405_ERR77(0,%3)
> > +	PPC_STLCX "%0,0,%3\n"
> > +	"bne-	1b"
> > +	: "=&r" (old), "+m" (*p)
> > +	: "r" (mask), "r" (p)
> > +	: "cc" );
> > +}
> 
> You also want a "memory" clobber on clear_bit_unlock() to tell gcc to
> consider it as a barrier for memory accesses.

Ah good catch, thanks.


> In addition, it's worth documenting that while spin_unlock() provides
> synchronization with outstanding MMIOs (look at the io sync stuff we
> have in spinlock.h), these bitops don't (and I don't want to add that
> here anyway), so drivers abusing bitops for lock might want to use
> mmiowb() explicitely.

OK, I'll mention that in the ppc code... but generic code shouldn't
rely on this anyway, right? (Or was it decided that spinlocks must
fence IO?).

Would _io postfixed locks be a sane way to handle this?


> > +static __inline__ void __clear_bit_unlock(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
> > +{
> > +	__asm__ __volatile__(LWSYNC_ON_SMP);
> > +	__clear_bit(nr, addr);
> > +}
> 
> The above needs a "memory" clobber too.

Yep.

Thanks for taking a look.