From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 08/26] locking: Remove spin_unlock_wait() generic definitions Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 09:18:51 -0700 Message-ID: <20170703161851.GY2393@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20170629235918.GA6445@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1498780894-8253-8-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170630091928.GC9726@arm.com> <20170630123815.GT2393@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170630131339.GA14118@arm.com> <20170630221840.GI2393@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170703131514.GE1573@arm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com, dave@stgolabs.net, manfred@colorfullife.com, tj@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, parri.andrea@gmail.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org To: Will Deacon Return-path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:55134 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754469AbdGCQS6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jul 2017 12:18:58 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v63GIvM0106624 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 12:18:57 -0400 Received: from e15.ny.us.ibm.com (e15.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.205]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2bf27b8cu5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 03 Jul 2017 12:18:57 -0400 Received: from localhost by e15.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 12:18:56 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170703131514.GE1573@arm.com> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 02:15:14PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 03:18:40PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 02:13:39PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 05:38:15AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > I also need to check all uses of spin_is_locked(). There might no > > > > longer be any that rely on any particular ordering... > > > > > > Right. I think we're looking for the "insane case" as per 38b850a73034 > > > (which was apparently used by ipc/sem.c at the time, but no longer). > > > > > > There's a usage in kernel/debug/debug_core.c, but it doesn't fill me with > > > joy. > > > > That is indeed an interesting one... But my first round will be what > > semantics the implementations seem to provide: > > > > Acquire courtesy of TSO: s390, sparc, x86. > > Acquire: ia64 (in reality fully ordered). > > Control dependency: alpha, arc, arm, blackfin, hexagon, m32r, mn10300, tile, > > xtensa. > > Control dependency plus leading full barrier: arm64, powerpc. > > UP-only: c6x, cris, frv, h8300, m68k, microblaze nios2, openrisc, um, unicore32. > > > > Special cases: > > metag: Acquire if !CONFIG_METAG_SMP_WRITE_REORDERING. > > Otherwise control dependency? > > mips: Control dependency, acquire if CONFIG_CPU_CAVIUM_OCTEON. > > parisc: Acquire courtesy of TSO, but why barrier in smp_load_acquire? > > sh: Acquire if one of SH4A, SH5, or J2, otherwise acquire? UP-only? > > > > Are these correct, or am I missing something with any of them? > > That looks about right but, at least on ARM, I think we have to consider > the semantics of spin_is_locked with respect to the other spin_* functions, > rather than in isolation. > > For example, ARM only has a control dependency, but spin_lock has a trailing > smp_mb() and spin_unlock has both leading and trailing smp_mb(). Agreed, and my next step is to look at spin_lock() followed by spin_is_locked(), not necessarily the same lock. Thanx, Paul