Re: [RFC PATCH-tip v2 1/6] locking/osq: Make lock/unlock proper acquire/release barrier

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Waiman Long wrote:

On 06/16/2016 09:11 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

Yeah, see a few patches further in this series, where he guards a
variables with the osq_lock.

So one problem I have with all this is that if we are hardening osq_lock/unlock() because of some future use that is specific to rwsems, then we will immediately
be hurting mutexes for no good reason.


I am going to change it to use smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() as suggested by PeterZ. Is that a good enough compromise? I have also changed the xchg in the unlock side to xchg_release which could help performance in some archs. The thing is when developers see the name osq_lock/osq_unlock, they will naturally assume the proper barrriers are provided which is not currently the case.

Oh, from your discussions with Boqun, I was under the impression that ->locked
was now going to be properly ordered in all cases now, which is why
I worry about mutexes.

Anyway, the change won't affect x86, it is probably ARM or PPC that may have an impact.

Yes, that xchg() won't affect x86, but adding an smp_store_release(node->locked, 1)
or such will obviously.

Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Newbies]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux