On 12/31/23 16:54, David Laight wrote:
When osq_lock() returns false or osq_unlock() returns static
analysis shows that node->next should always be NULL.
This means that it isn't necessary to explicitly set it to NULL
prior to atomic_xchg(&lock->tail, curr) on extry to osq_lock().
Just in case there a non-obvious race condition that can leave it
non-NULL check with WARN_ON_ONCE() and NULL if set.
Note that without this check the fast path (adding at the list head)
doesn't need to to access the per-cpu osq_node at all.
Signed-off-by: David Laight <david.laight@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/locking/osq_lock.c | 14 ++++++++++----
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
index 27324b509f68..35bb99e96697 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
@@ -87,12 +87,17 @@ osq_wait_next(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock,
bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
{
- struct optimistic_spin_node *node = this_cpu_ptr(&osq_node);
- struct optimistic_spin_node *prev, *next;
+ struct optimistic_spin_node *node, *prev, *next;
int curr = encode_cpu(smp_processor_id());
int prev_cpu;
- node->next = NULL;
+ /*
+ * node->next should be NULL on entry.
+ * Check just in case there is a race somewhere.
+ * Note that this is probably an unnecessary cache miss in the fast path.
+ */
+ if (WARN_ON_ONCE(raw_cpu_read(osq_node.next) != NULL))
+ raw_cpu_write(osq_node.next, NULL);
/*
* We need both ACQUIRE (pairs with corresponding RELEASE in
@@ -104,8 +109,9 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
if (prev_cpu == OSQ_UNLOCKED_VAL)
return true;
- node->prev_cpu = prev_cpu;
+ node = this_cpu_ptr(&osq_node);
prev = decode_cpu(prev_cpu);
+ node->prev_cpu = prev_cpu;
node->locked = 0;
/*
Reviewed-by: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>
