From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84D58DDEBA
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:35:51 +1000 (EST)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] synchronize_irq needs a barrier
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <20071019042025.GA9617@gondor.apana.org.au>
References: <E1IiWnJ-0000ne-00@gondolin.me.apana.org.au>
	<1192745137.7367.40.camel@pasglop>
	<alpine.LFD.0.999.0710181549330.26902@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<1192749449.7367.51.camel@pasglop>
	<alpine.LFD.0.999.0710181627091.26902@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<20071019023219.GB8453@gondor.apana.org.au>
	<alpine.LFD.0.999.0710181941020.26902@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<alpine.LFD.0.999.0710182007170.26902@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<20071019042025.GA9617@gondor.apana.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:35:10 +1000
Message-Id: <1192768510.7367.104.camel@pasglop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Reply-To: benh@kernel.crashing.org
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>


> What may happen is that action can either float upwards to give
> 
> 	spin_lock
> 	action
> 	set IRQ_INPROGRESS
> 	spin_unlock
> 
> 	spin_lock
> 	clear IRQ_INPROGRESS
> 	spin_unlock
> 
> or it can float downwards to give
> 
> 	spin_lock
> 	set IRQ_INPROGRESS
> 	spin_unlock
> 
> 	spin_lock
> 	clear IRQ_INPROGRESS
> 	action
> 	spin_unlock
> 

Well, we are generally safer here. That is, unless action is a store,
it will not pass spin_lock, at least not on powerpc afaik.

In fact, if action, as it is in our case, is something like

if (foo)
	return;

We cant execute the store inside spin_lock() without having loaded
foo, there is an implicit dependency here.

But anyway, Linus patch fixes that too if it was a problem. Now if
we grep for while (test_bit and while (!test_bit I'm sure we'll find
other similar surprises.

That's also one of the reasons why I _love_ nick patches that add a
proper lock/unlock API on bits, because at least those who are doing
those hand-made pseudo-locks with bitops to save space will be
getting a proper lock/unlock API, no more excuse.

The network stack is doing more fancy things so it's harder (though I
wonder sometimes if it's really worth the risks taken for not using
spinlocks... maybe).

Ben.