On 10/06/2016 01:47 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Wed, 05 Oct 2016, Waiman Long wrote:
diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
index 05a3785..1e6823a 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
@@ -12,6 +12,23 @@
*/
static DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct optimistic_spin_node,
osq_node);
+enum mbtype {
+ acquire,
+ release,
+ relaxed,
+};
No, please.
+
+static __always_inline int
+_atomic_cmpxchg_(const enum mbtype barrier, atomic_t *v, int old,
int new)
+{
+ if (barrier == acquire)
+ return atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(v, old, new);
+ else if (barrier == release)
+ return atomic_cmpxchg_release(v, old, new);
+ else
+ return atomic_cmpxchg_relaxed(v, old, new);
+}
Things like the above are icky. How about something like below? I'm not
crazy about it, but there are other similar macros, ie lockref. We still
provide the osq_lock/unlock to imply acquire/release and the new _relaxed
flavor, as I agree that should be the correct naming
While I have not touched osq_wait_next(), the following are impacted:
- node->locked is now completely without ordering for _relaxed()
(currently
its under smp_load_acquire, which does not match and the race is harmless
to begin with as we just iterate again. For the acquire flavor, it is
always
formed with ctr dep + smp_rmb().
- If osq_lock() fails we never guarantee any ordering.
What do you think?
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Yes, I am OK with your change. However, I need some additional changes
in osq_wait_next() as well. Either it is changed to use the release
variants of atomic_cmpxchg and xchg or using macro like what you did
with osq_lock and osq_unlock. The release variant is needed in the
osq_lock(). As osq_wait_next() is only invoked in the failure path of
osq_lock(), the barrier type doesn't really matter.
Cheers,
Longman
--
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
