On 09/28/2013 12:34 AM, Jason Low wrote:
Also, below is what the mcs_spin_lock() and mcs_spin_unlock() functions would look like after applying the proposed changes. static noinline void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spin_node **lock, struct mcs_spin_node *node) { struct mcs_spin_node *prev; /* Init node */ node->locked = 0; node->next = NULL; prev = xchg(lock, node); if (likely(prev == NULL)) { /* Lock acquired. No need to set node->locked since it won't be used */ return; } ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node; /* Wait until the lock holder passes the lock down */ while (!ACCESS_ONCE(node->locked)) arch_mutex_cpu_relax(); smp_mb();
I wonder if a memory barrier is really needed here.
} static void mcs_spin_unlock(struct mcs_spin_node **lock, struct mcs_spin_node *node) { struct mcs_spin_node *next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next); if (likely(!next)) { /* * Release the lock by setting it to NULL */ if (cmpxchg(lock, node, NULL) == node) return; /* Wait until the next pointer is set */ while (!(next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next))) arch_mutex_cpu_relax(); } smp_wmb(); ACCESS_ONCE(next->locked) = 1; }
Instead, I think what we need may be: if (likely(!next)) { .... } else smp_mb(); ACCESS_ONCE(next->locked) = 1; That will ensure a memory barrier in the unlock path. Regards, Longman -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx"> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>