On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 10:19:29AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 05:01:16PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics,
> > and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock
> > pair. This commit therefore removes spin_unlock_wait() and related
> > definitions from core code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > include/asm-generic/qspinlock.h | 14 -----
> > include/linux/spinlock.h | 31 -----------
> > include/linux/spinlock_up.h | 6 ---
> > kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 117 ----------------------------------------
> > 4 files changed, 168 deletions(-)
>
> [...]
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> > index b2caec7315af..64a9051e4c2c 100644
> > --- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> > @@ -267,123 +267,6 @@ static __always_inline u32 __pv_wait_head_or_lock(struct qspinlock *lock,
> > #define queued_spin_lock_slowpath native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
> > #endif
> >
> > -/*
> > - * Various notes on spin_is_locked() and spin_unlock_wait(), which are
> > - * 'interesting' functions:
> > - *
> > - * PROBLEM: some architectures have an interesting issue with atomic ACQUIRE
> > - * operations in that the ACQUIRE applies to the LOAD _not_ the STORE (ARM64,
> > - * PPC). Also qspinlock has a similar issue per construction, the setting of
> > - * the locked byte can be unordered acquiring the lock proper.
> > - *
> > - * This gets to be 'interesting' in the following cases, where the /should/s
> > - * end up false because of this issue.
> > - *
> > - *
> > - * CASE 1:
> > - *
> > - * So the spin_is_locked() correctness issue comes from something like:
> > - *
> > - * CPU0 CPU1
> > - *
> > - * global_lock(); local_lock(i)
> > - * spin_lock(&G) spin_lock(&L[i])
> > - * for (i) if (!spin_is_locked(&G)) {
> > - * spin_unlock_wait(&L[i]); smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep();
> > - * return;
> > - * }
> > - * // deal with fail
> > - *
> > - * Where it is important CPU1 sees G locked or CPU0 sees L[i] locked such
> > - * that there is exclusion between the two critical sections.
> > - *
> > - * The load from spin_is_locked(&G) /should/ be constrained by the ACQUIRE from
> > - * spin_lock(&L[i]), and similarly the load(s) from spin_unlock_wait(&L[i])
> > - * /should/ be constrained by the ACQUIRE from spin_lock(&G).
> > - *
> > - * Similarly, later stuff is constrained by the ACQUIRE from CTRL+RMB.
>
> Might be worth keeping this comment about spin_is_locked, since we're not
> removing that guy just yet!
Ah, all the examples had spin_unlock_wait() in them. So what I need to
do is to create a spin_unlock_wait()-free example to illustrate the
text starting with "The load from spin_is_locked(", correct?
I also need to check all uses of spin_is_locked(). There might no
longer be any that rely on any particular ordering...
Thanx, Paul
