From: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-4.17 2/2] powerpc: Remove smp_mb() from arch_spin_is_locked()
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 12:25:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180327102521.GA7347@andrea> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1522109216.7364.30.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:06:56AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-03-26 at 12:37 +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > Commit 51d7d5205d338 ("powerpc: Add smp_mb() to arch_spin_is_locked()")
> > added an smp_mb() to arch_spin_is_locked(), in order to ensure that
> >
> > Thread 0 Thread 1
> >
> > spin_lock(A); spin_lock(B);
> > r0 = spin_is_locked(B) r1 = spin_is_locked(A);
> >
> > never ends up with r0 = r1 = 0, and reported one example (in ipc/sem.c)
> > relying on such guarantee.
> >
> > It's however understood (and undocumented) that spin_is_locked() is not
> > required to ensure such ordering guarantee,
>
> Shouldn't we start by documenting it ?
I do sympathize with your concern about the documentation! ;) The patch in
[1] was my (re)action to this concern; the sort of the patch is unclear to
me by this time (and I'm not aware of other proposals in this respect).
>
> > guarantee that is currently
> > _not_ provided by all implementations/arch, and that callers relying on
> > such ordering should instead use suitable memory barriers before acting
> > on the result of spin_is_locked().
> >
> > Following a recent auditing[1] of the callers of {,raw_}spin_is_locked()
> > revealing that none of them are relying on this guarantee anymore, this
> > commit removes the leading smp_mb() from the primitive thus effectively
> > reverting 51d7d5205d338.
>
> I would rather wait until it is properly documented. Debugging that IPC
> problem took a *LOT* of time and energy, I wouldn't want these issues
> to come and bite us again.
I understand. And I'm grateful for this debugging as well as for the (IMO)
excellent account of it you provided in 51d7d5205d338.
Said this ;) I cannot except myself from saying that I would probably have
resisted that solution (adding an smp_mb() in my arch_spin_is_locked), and
instead "blamed"/suggested that caller to fix his memory ordering...
Andrea
>
> > [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151981440005264&w=2
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
> > Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
> > Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
> > Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> > ---
> > arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h | 1 -
> > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> > index b9ebc3085fb79..ecc141e3f1a73 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> > @@ -67,7 +67,6 @@ static __always_inline int arch_spin_value_unlocked(arch_spinlock_t lock)
> >
> > static inline int arch_spin_is_locked(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
> > {
> > - smp_mb();
> > return !arch_spin_value_unlocked(*lock);
> > }
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-27 10:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-26 10:37 [PATCH for-4.17 2/2] powerpc: Remove smp_mb() from arch_spin_is_locked() Andrea Parri
2018-03-27 0:06 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2018-03-27 10:25 ` Andrea Parri [this message]
2018-03-27 11:33 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2018-03-27 13:13 ` Andrea Parri
2018-03-27 21:51 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2018-03-28 9:17 ` Andrea Parri
2018-03-28 5:25 ` Michael Ellerman
2018-03-28 11:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-03-28 11:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-04 10:28 ` Michael Ellerman
2018-04-04 10:28 ` Michael Ellerman
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=20180327102521.GA7347@andrea \
--to=andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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