From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>, Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>, x86@kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Subject: [RFC 11/12 v1] x86, rwsem: provide __down_write_killable Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:56 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20160217164156.GU29196@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1454444369-2146-12-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> OK, so I have dropped patch 10 and reworked the x86 part to use the same asm as __down_write uses. Does this look any better? I am not an expert in inline asm so the way I am doing it might be not optimal but at least the gerenated code looks sane (no changes for the regular __down_write). --- From d9a24cd6d6eb48602b11df56ecc3ea4e223ac18d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:21:51 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] x86, rwsem: provide __down_write_killable which uses the same fast path as __down_write except it falls back to call_rwsem_down_write_failed_killable slow path and return -EINTR if killed. To prevent from code duplication extract the skeleton of __down_write into a helper macro which just takes the semaphore and the slow path function to be called. Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> --- arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- arch/x86/lib/rwsem.S | 8 ++++++++ 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h index d79a218675bc..4c3d90dbe89a 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h @@ -99,21 +99,36 @@ static inline int __down_read_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem) /* * lock for writing */ +#define ____down_write(sem, slow_path) \ +({ \ + long tmp; \ + struct rw_semaphore* ret = sem; \ + asm volatile("# beginning down_write\n\t" \ + LOCK_PREFIX " xadd %1,(%2)\n\t" \ + /* adds 0xffff0001, returns the old value */ \ + " test " __ASM_SEL(%w1,%k1) "," __ASM_SEL(%w1,%k1) "\n\t" \ + /* was the active mask 0 before? */\ + " jz 1f\n" \ + " call " slow_path "\n" \ + "1:\n" \ + "# ending down_write" \ + : "+m" (sem->count), "=d" (tmp), "+a" (ret) \ + : "a" (sem), "1" (RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS) \ + : "memory", "cc"); \ + ret; \ +}) + static inline void __down_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem) { - long tmp; - asm volatile("# beginning down_write\n\t" - LOCK_PREFIX " xadd %1,(%2)\n\t" - /* adds 0xffff0001, returns the old value */ - " test " __ASM_SEL(%w1,%k1) "," __ASM_SEL(%w1,%k1) "\n\t" - /* was the active mask 0 before? */ - " jz 1f\n" - " call call_rwsem_down_write_failed\n" - "1:\n" - "# ending down_write" - : "+m" (sem->count), "=d" (tmp) - : "a" (sem), "1" (RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS) - : "memory", "cc"); + ____down_write(sem, "call_rwsem_down_write_failed"); +} + +static inline int __down_write_killable(struct rw_semaphore *sem) +{ + if (IS_ERR(____down_write(sem, "call_rwsem_down_write_failed_killable"))) + return -EINTR; + + return 0; } /* diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/rwsem.S b/arch/x86/lib/rwsem.S index 40027db99140..d1a1397e1fb3 100644 --- a/arch/x86/lib/rwsem.S +++ b/arch/x86/lib/rwsem.S @@ -101,6 +101,14 @@ ENTRY(call_rwsem_down_write_failed) ret ENDPROC(call_rwsem_down_write_failed) +ENTRY(call_rwsem_down_write_failed_killable) + save_common_regs + movq %rax,%rdi + call rwsem_down_write_failed_killable + restore_common_regs + ret +ENDPROC(call_rwsem_down_write_failed_killable) + ENTRY(call_rwsem_wake) /* do nothing if still outstanding active readers */ __ASM_HALF_SIZE(dec) %__ASM_HALF_REG(dx) -- 2.7.0 -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>, Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>, x86@kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Subject: [RFC 11/12 v1] x86, rwsem: provide __down_write_killable Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:41:56 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20160217164156.GU29196@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw) Message-ID: <20160217164156.pyoNPRGF9S1Hr9mmIqgE8bR0pmYINpmAfC2fvyO8Iac@z> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1454444369-2146-12-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> OK, so I have dropped patch 10 and reworked the x86 part to use the same asm as __down_write uses. Does this look any better? I am not an expert in inline asm so the way I am doing it might be not optimal but at least the gerenated code looks sane (no changes for the regular __down_write). ---
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-17 16:41 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2016-02-02 20:19 [RFC 0/12] introduce down_write_killable for rw_semaphore Michal Hocko 2016-02-02 20:19 ` Michal Hocko 2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 01/12] locking, rwsem: get rid of __down_write_nested Michal Hocko 2016-02-02 20:19 ` Michal Hocko 2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 02/12] locking, rwsem: drop explicit memory barriers Michal Hocko 2016-02-02 20:19 ` Michal Hocko 2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 03/12] locking, rwsem: introduce basis for down_write_killable Michal Hocko 2016-02-02 20:19 ` Michal Hocko 2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 04/12] alpha, rwsem: provide __down_write_killable Michal Hocko 2016-02-02 20:19 ` Michal Hocko 2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 05/12] ia64, " Michal Hocko 2016-02-02 20:19 ` Michal Hocko 2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 06/12] s390, " Michal Hocko 2016-02-02 20:19 ` Michal Hocko 2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 07/12] sh, " Michal Hocko 2016-02-02 20:19 ` Michal Hocko 2016-02-03 11:19 ` Sergei Shtylyov 2016-02-03 12:11 ` Michal Hocko 2016-02-03 12:11 ` Michal Hocko 2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 08/12] sparc, " Michal Hocko 2016-02-02 20:19 ` Michal Hocko 2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 09/12] xtensa, " Michal Hocko 2016-02-02 20:19 ` Michal Hocko 2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 10/12] x86, rwsem: simplify __down_write Michal Hocko 2016-02-02 20:19 ` Michal Hocko 2016-02-03 8:10 ` Ingo Molnar 2016-02-03 8:10 ` Ingo Molnar 2016-02-03 12:10 ` Michal Hocko 2016-02-03 12:10 ` Michal Hocko 2016-06-03 16:13 ` Peter Zijlstra 2016-06-03 22:34 ` Peter Zijlstra 2016-06-03 22:34 ` Peter Zijlstra 2016-06-09 14:40 ` David Howells 2016-06-09 14:40 ` David Howells 2016-06-09 17:36 ` Peter Zijlstra 2016-06-10 16:39 ` Paul E. McKenney 2016-06-10 16:39 ` Paul E. McKenney 2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 11/12] x86, rwsem: provide __down_write_killable Michal Hocko 2016-02-02 20:19 ` Michal Hocko 2016-02-17 16:41 ` Michal Hocko [this message] 2016-02-17 16:41 ` [RFC 11/12 v1] " Michal Hocko 2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 12/12] locking, rwsem: provide down_write_killable Michal Hocko 2016-02-02 20:19 ` Michal Hocko 2016-02-19 12:15 ` [RFC 0/12] introduce down_write_killable for rw_semaphore Michal Hocko 2016-02-19 12:15 ` Michal Hocko 2016-03-09 12:18 ` Ingo Molnar 2016-03-09 12:18 ` Ingo Molnar 2016-03-09 12:56 ` Michal Hocko 2016-03-09 12:56 ` Michal Hocko 2016-03-09 13:17 ` Ingo Molnar 2016-03-09 13:28 ` Michal Hocko 2016-03-09 13:43 ` Ingo Molnar 2016-03-09 14:41 ` Michal Hocko 2016-03-10 10:24 ` Ingo Molnar 2016-03-10 10:24 ` Ingo Molnar
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=20160217164156.GU29196@dhcp22.suse.cz \ --to=mhocko@kernel.org \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=chris@zankel.net \ --cc=davem@davemloft.net \ --cc=hpa@zytor.com \ --cc=jcmvbkbc@gmail.com \ --cc=linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org \ --cc=mingo@redhat.com \ --cc=peterz@infradead.org \ --cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \ --cc=tony.luck@intel.com \ --cc=x86@kernel.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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).