public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux@horizon.com, Kirill Korotaev <dev@sw.ru>
Subject: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:32:44 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <434BDB1C.60105@cosmosbay.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0510110740050.14597@g5.osdl.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 351 bytes --]

As NR_CPUS might be > 128, and every spining CPU decrements the lock, we need 
to use more than 8 bits for a spinlock. The current (i386/x86_64) 
implementations have a (theorical) bug in this area.
As the allocated space for spinlock_t is 32 bits, let's use full 32 bits and 
let the CPUS fight :)

Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>


[-- Attachment #2: i386_spinlock --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2056 bytes --]

--- linux-2.6.14-rc4/include/asm-i386/spinlock.h	2005-10-11 03:19:19.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.14-rc4-ed/include/asm-i386/spinlock.h	2005-10-11 19:19:27.000000000 +0200
@@ -18,23 +18,24 @@
  * (the type definitions are in asm/spinlock_types.h)
  */
 
+
 #define __raw_spin_is_locked(x) \
-		(*(volatile signed char *)(&(x)->slock) <= 0)
+		(*(volatile int *)(&(x)->slock) <= 0)
 
 #define __raw_spin_lock_string \
 	"\n1:\t" \
-	"lock ; decb %0\n\t" \
+	"lock ; decl %0\n\t" \
 	"jns 3f\n" \
 	"2:\t" \
 	"rep;nop\n\t" \
-	"cmpb $0,%0\n\t" \
+	"cmpl $0,%0\n\t" \
 	"jle 2b\n\t" \
 	"jmp 1b\n" \
 	"3:\n\t"
 
 #define __raw_spin_lock_string_flags \
 	"\n1:\t" \
-	"lock ; decb %0\n\t" \
+	"lock ; decl %0\n\t" \
 	"jns 4f\n\t" \
 	"2:\t" \
 	"testl $0x200, %1\n\t" \
@@ -42,7 +43,7 @@
 	"sti\n\t" \
 	"3:\t" \
 	"rep;nop\n\t" \
-	"cmpb $0, %0\n\t" \
+	"cmpl $0, %0\n\t" \
 	"jle 3b\n\t" \
 	"cli\n\t" \
 	"jmp 1b\n" \
@@ -64,9 +65,10 @@
 
 static inline int __raw_spin_trylock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
 {
-	char oldval;
+	int oldval;
+	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(lock->slock) != sizeof(oldval));
 	__asm__ __volatile__(
-		"xchgb %b0,%1"
+		"xchgl %0,%1"
 		:"=q" (oldval), "=m" (lock->slock)
 		:"0" (0) : "memory");
 	return oldval > 0;
@@ -75,14 +77,14 @@
 /*
  * __raw_spin_unlock based on writing $1 to the low byte.
  * This method works. Despite all the confusion.
- * (except on PPro SMP or if we are using OOSTORE, so we use xchgb there)
+ * (except on PPro SMP or if we are using OOSTORE, so we use xchgl there)
  * (PPro errata 66, 92)
  */
 
 #if !defined(CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE) && !defined(CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE)
 
 #define __raw_spin_unlock_string \
-	"movb $1,%0" \
+	"movl $1,%0" \
 		:"=m" (lock->slock) : : "memory"
 
 
@@ -96,13 +98,13 @@
 #else
 
 #define __raw_spin_unlock_string \
-	"xchgb %b0, %1" \
+	"xchgl %0, %1" \
 		:"=q" (oldval), "=m" (lock->slock) \
 		:"0" (oldval) : "memory"
 
 static inline void __raw_spin_unlock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
 {
-	char oldval = 1;
+	int oldval = 1;
 
 	__asm__ __volatile__(
 		__raw_spin_unlock_string

  reply	other threads:[~2005-10-11 15:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-10-11  4:04 i386 spinlock fairness: bizarre test results Chuck Ebbert
2005-10-11  9:42 ` Eric Dumazet
2005-10-11 13:00 ` Alan Cox
2005-10-11 14:44   ` Linus Torvalds
2005-10-11 15:32     ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2005-10-11 16:03       ` [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits Linus Torvalds
2005-10-11 16:36         ` Eric Dumazet
2005-10-11 16:54           ` Linus Torvalds
2005-10-11 16:55             ` Linus Torvalds
2005-10-17  7:03           ` Andrew Morton
2005-10-17  7:20             ` Arjan van de Ven
2005-10-20 21:50               ` Ingo Molnar
2005-10-20 21:57                 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-10-20 22:02                   ` Ingo Molnar
2005-10-20 22:15                     ` Linus Torvalds
2005-10-20 22:27                       ` Ingo Molnar
2005-10-20 22:44                         ` Andrew Morton
2005-10-20 22:53                           ` Ingo Molnar
2005-10-20 23:01                             ` Andrew Morton
2005-10-20 23:26                               ` Ingo Molnar
2005-10-27 16:54                                 ` Paul Jackson
2005-10-11 17:59         ` Andi Kleen

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=434BDB1C.60105@cosmosbay.com \
    --to=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
    --cc=dev@sw.ru \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@horizon.com \
    --cc=torvalds@osdl.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