On 09/30/2013 12:10 PM, Jason Low wrote:
On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 11:51 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
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.
If the compiler can reorder the while (!ACCESS_ONCE(node->locked)) check
so that the check occurs after an instruction in the critical section,
then the barrier may be necessary.
In that case, just a barrier() call should be enough.
-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>