public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] x86/spinlock: Replace ACCESS_ONCE with READ_ONCE
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 16:10:28 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141204001028.GZ25340@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1417645821-54731-4-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com>

On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 11:30:15PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> ACCESS_ONCE does not work reliably on non-scalar types. For
> example gcc 4.6 and 4.7 might remove the volatile tag for such
> accesses during the SRA (scalar replacement of aggregates) step
> (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58145)
> 
> Change the spinlock code to replace ACCESS_ONCE with READ_ONCE.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>

Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
> index 9295016..12a69b4 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
> @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ static __always_inline void arch_spin_lock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
>  		unsigned count = SPIN_THRESHOLD;
> 
>  		do {
> -			if (ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets.head) == inc.tail)
> +			if (READ_ONCE(lock->tickets.head) == inc.tail)
>  				goto out;
>  			cpu_relax();
>  		} while (--count);
> @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ static __always_inline int arch_spin_trylock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
>  {
>  	arch_spinlock_t old, new;
> 
> -	old.tickets = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets);
> +	old.tickets = READ_ONCE(lock->tickets);
>  	if (old.tickets.head != (old.tickets.tail & ~TICKET_SLOWPATH_FLAG))
>  		return 0;
> 
> @@ -162,14 +162,14 @@ static __always_inline void arch_spin_unlock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
> 
>  static inline int arch_spin_is_locked(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
>  {
> -	struct __raw_tickets tmp = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets);
> +	struct __raw_tickets tmp = READ_ONCE(lock->tickets);
> 
>  	return tmp.tail != tmp.head;
>  }
> 
>  static inline int arch_spin_is_contended(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
>  {
> -	struct __raw_tickets tmp = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets);
> +	struct __raw_tickets tmp = READ_ONCE(lock->tickets);
> 
>  	return (__ticket_t)(tmp.tail - tmp.head) > TICKET_LOCK_INC;
>  }
> -- 
> 1.9.3
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2014-12-04  0:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-12-03 22:30 [PATCHv4 0/9] ACCESS_ONCE and non-scalar accesses Christian Borntraeger
2014-12-03 22:30 ` [PATCH 1/9] kernel: Provide READ_ONCE and ASSIGN_ONCE Christian Borntraeger
2014-12-04  0:07   ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-12-04  9:24     ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-12-04 14:41       ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-12-03 22:30 ` [PATCH 2/9] mm: replace ACCESS_ONCE with READ_ONCE or barriers Christian Borntraeger
2014-12-04  0:09   ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-12-03 22:30 ` [PATCH 3/9] x86/spinlock: Replace ACCESS_ONCE with READ_ONCE Christian Borntraeger
2014-12-04  0:10   ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2014-12-03 22:30 ` [PATCH 4/9] x86/gup: " Christian Borntraeger
2014-12-04  0:10   ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-12-03 22:30 ` [PATCH 5/9] mips/gup: " Christian Borntraeger
2014-12-04  0:11   ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-12-03 22:30 ` [PATCH 6/9] arm64/spinlock: Replace ACCESS_ONCE READ_ONCE Christian Borntraeger
2014-12-04  0:11   ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-12-03 22:30 ` [PATCH 7/9] arm/spinlock: Replace ACCESS_ONCE with READ_ONCE Christian Borntraeger
2014-12-04  0:12   ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-12-03 22:30 ` [PATCH 8/9] s390/kvm: REPLACE " Christian Borntraeger
2014-12-04  0:12   ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-12-03 22:30 ` [PATCH 9/9] kernel: tighten rules for ACCESS ONCE Christian Borntraeger
2014-12-04  0:16   ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-12-04  9:28     ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-12-04 14:41       ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-12-04 15:24 ` [PATCHv4 0/9] ACCESS_ONCE and non-scalar accesses Christian Borntraeger
2014-12-04 23:40 ` Linus Torvalds

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=20141204001028.GZ25340@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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