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
