From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
To: benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
1vier1@web.de, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Subject: [PATCH 2/4 V4] spinlock.h: Move smp_mb__after_unlock_lock to spinlock.h
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 15:34:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1472477669-27508-3-git-send-email-manfred@colorfullife.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1472477669-27508-1-git-send-email-manfred@colorfullife.com>
v3: If smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() is in barrier.h, then
for arm64, kernel/rcu/tree.c doesn't compile because barrier.h
is not included in kernel/rcu/tree.c
(v2 was: add example from Paul, something that can happen on real HW)
spin_unlock() + spin_lock() together do not form a full memory barrier:
(everything initialized to 0)
CPU1:
a=1;
spin_unlock(&b);
spin_lock(&c);
+ smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
r1=d;
CPU2:
d=1;
smp_mb();
r2=a;
Without the smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), r1==0 && r2==0 would
be possible.
Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
---
include/linux/spinlock.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++
kernel/rcu/tree.h | 12 ------------
2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/spinlock.h b/include/linux/spinlock.h
index d79000e..5075c88 100644
--- a/include/linux/spinlock.h
+++ b/include/linux/spinlock.h
@@ -142,6 +142,22 @@ do { \
#define smp_mb__after_spin_lock() smp_mb()
#endif
+#ifndef smp_mb__after_unlock_lock
+/**
+ * smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() - Provide smp_mb() after unlock+lock
+ *
+ * Place this after a lock-acquisition primitive to guarantee that
+ * an UNLOCK+LOCK pair act as a full barrier. This guarantee applies
+ * if the UNLOCK and LOCK are executed by the same CPU or if the
+ * UNLOCK and LOCK operate on the same lock variable.
+ */
+#ifdef CONFIG_PPC
+#define smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() smp_mb() /* Full ordering for lock. */
+#else /* #ifdef CONFIG_PPC */
+#define smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() do { } while (0)
+#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_PPC */
+#endif
+
/**
* raw_spin_unlock_wait - wait until the spinlock gets unlocked
* @lock: the spinlock in question.
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.h b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
index e99a523..a0cd9ab 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
@@ -687,18 +687,6 @@ static inline void rcu_nocb_q_lengths(struct rcu_data *rdp, long *ql, long *qll)
#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_TRACE */
/*
- * Place this after a lock-acquisition primitive to guarantee that
- * an UNLOCK+LOCK pair act as a full barrier. This guarantee applies
- * if the UNLOCK and LOCK are executed by the same CPU or if the
- * UNLOCK and LOCK operate on the same lock variable.
- */
-#ifdef CONFIG_PPC
-#define smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() smp_mb() /* Full ordering for lock. */
-#else /* #ifdef CONFIG_PPC */
-#define smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() do { } while (0)
-#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_PPC */
-
-/*
* Wrappers for the rcu_node::lock acquire and release.
*
* Because the rcu_nodes form a tree, the tree traversal locking will observe
--
2.5.5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-29 13:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-29 13:34 [PATCH 0/4 V4] Clarify/standardize memory barriers for lock/unlock Manfred Spraul
2016-08-29 13:34 ` [PATCH 1/4 v4] spinlock: Document memory barrier rules Manfred Spraul
2016-08-29 17:38 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-08-29 13:34 ` Manfred Spraul [this message]
2016-08-29 13:34 ` [PATCH 3/4 V4] net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core: update memory barriers Manfred Spraul
2016-08-29 13:34 ` [PATCH 4/4 V4] qspinlock for x86: smp_mb__after_spin_lock() is free Manfred Spraul
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=1472477669-27508-3-git-send-email-manfred@colorfullife.com \
--to=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--cc=1vier1@web.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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: link
Be 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