Re: [PATCH 1/3] ipc/sem.c: Chance memory barrier in sem_lock() to smp_rmb()

[Rafael Aquini <aquini@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 08:32:41PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> When I fixed bugs in the sem_lock() logic, I was more conservative than
> necessary.
> Therefore it is safe to replace the smp_mb() with smp_rmb().
> And: With smp_rmb(), semop() syscalls are up to 10% faster.
> 
> The race we must protect against is:
> 
> 	sem->lock is free
> 	sma->complex_count = 0
> 	sma->sem_perm.lock held by thread B
> 
> thread A:
> 
> A: spin_lock(&sem->lock)
> 
> 			B: sma->complex_count++; (now 1)
> 			B: spin_unlock(&sma->sem_perm.lock);
> 
> A: spin_is_locked(&sma->sem_perm.lock);
> A: XXXXX memory barrier
> A: if (sma->complex_count == 0)
> 
> Thread A must read the increased complex_count value, i.e. the read must
> not be reordered with the read of sem_perm.lock done by spin_is_locked().
> 
> Since it's about ordering of reads, smp_rmb() is sufficient.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
> ---
>  ipc/sem.c | 12 +++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
> index 454f6c6..ffc71de 100644
> --- a/ipc/sem.c
> +++ b/ipc/sem.c
> @@ -326,10 +326,16 @@ static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_array *sma, struct sembuf *sops,
>  
>  		/* Then check that the global lock is free */
>  		if (!spin_is_locked(&sma->sem_perm.lock)) {
> -			/* spin_is_locked() is not a memory barrier */
> -			smp_mb();
> +			/*
> +			 * The next test must happen after the test for
> +			 * sem_perm.lock, otherwise we can race with another
> +			 * thread that does
> +			 *	complex_count++;spin_unlock(sem_perm.lock);
> +			 */
> +			smp_rmb();
>  
> -			/* Now repeat the test of complex_count:
> +			/*
> +			 * Now repeat the test of complex_count:
>  			 * It can't change anymore until we drop sem->lock.
>  			 * Thus: if is now 0, then it will stay 0.
>  			 */
> -- 
> 1.9.3
> 
Acked-by: Rafael Aquini <aquini@redhat.com>