From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jack Steiner Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 14:56:08 +0000 Subject: [Linux-ia64] Re: spin_unlock() problem Message-Id: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org > > Hi, > > I have been tracing a problem with tty->count hitting an unidenfied > state and I am starting to ponder if our current spin_unlock() > implementation is sufficient. > > Currently the spin_unlock() implementation looks like this: > > #define spin_unlock(x) do { barrier(); ((spinlock_t *) x)->lock = 0;} while (0) > > barrier() doesn't guarantee memory ordering, in other words, we are not > guaranteed that writes have been flushed to physical memory on exit. Now > Jesse pointed out to me that spin_lock() uses aquire semantics which > should take care of this, however this is only the case if the other CPU > grabs a spin lock before reading the variable we wrote while holding the > lock. > > Consider the following example: > > cpu1() > { > spin_lock(&bleh); > *a = foo; > *b = bar; > spin_unlock(&bleh); > } > > cpu2() > { > if (*b = bar) > boink(*a); > } > > With our weak memory ordering, b might have been written back to memory > while a still hasn't made it out. Or am I missing something here? I think IA64 is ok. spinlock_t defines "lock" as volatile. On IA64, all references to volatile are required to use loads/stores with acquire/release semantics. gcc ensures this. The barrier() statement prevents compiler optimizations. The st.rel [lock]=0 clears the lock. The "st.rel" ensure that all previously issued stores have reached visibilty in the coherency domain before the lock is cleared. > > The question is, shouldn't our spin_unlock() implementation call wmb() > instead of barrier()? I noticed Alpha calls mb() in their spin_unlock() > implementation. > > Cheers, > Jes > -- Thanks Jack Steiner (651-683-5302) (vnet 233-5302) steiner@sgi.com