Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] introduce test_bit_acquire and use it in wait_on_bit

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

 



On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 07:38:17AM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2022, Will Deacon wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 12:12:47PM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > On Mon, 1 Aug 2022, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 06:42:15AM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
> > > > > ===================================================================
> > > > > --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h	2022-08-01 12:27:43.000000000 +0200
> > > > > +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h	2022-08-01 12:27:43.000000000 +0200
> > > > > @@ -203,8 +203,10 @@ arch_test_and_change_bit(long nr, volati
> > > > >  
> > > > >  static __always_inline bool constant_test_bit(long nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
> > > > >  {
> > > > > -	return ((1UL << (nr & (BITS_PER_LONG-1))) &
> > > > > +	bool r = ((1UL << (nr & (BITS_PER_LONG-1))) &
> > > > >  		(addr[nr >> _BITOPS_LONG_SHIFT])) != 0;
> > > > > +	barrier();
> > > > > +	return r;
> > > > 
> > > > Hmm, I find it a bit weird to have a barrier() here given that 'addr' is
> > > > volatile and we don't need a barrier() like this in the definition of
> > > > READ_ONCE(), for example.
> > > 
> > > gcc doesn't reorder two volatile accesses, but it can reorder non-volatile
> > > accesses around volatile accesses.
> > > 
> > > The purpose of the compiler barrier is to make sure that the non-volatile 
> > > accesses that follow test_bit are not reordered by the compiler before the 
> > > volatile access to addr.
> > 
> > If we need these accesses to be ordered reliably, then we need a CPU barrier
> > and that will additionally prevent the compiler reordering. So I still don't
> > think we need the barrier() here.
> 
> This is x86-specific code. x86 has strong memory ordering, so we only care 
> about compiler reordering.

Indeed, but what I'm trying to say is that the _caller_ would have a memory
barrier in this case, and so there's no need for one in here. test_bit() does
not have ordering semantics.

Will



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux