The patch titled
Subject: ipc/sem.c: change memory barrier in sem_lock() to smp_rmb()
has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
ipc-semc-chance-memory-barrier-in-sem_lock-to-smp_rmb.patch
This patch should soon appear at
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/ipc-semc-chance-memory-barrier-in-sem_lock-to-smp_rmb.patch
and later at
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/ipc-semc-chance-memory-barrier-in-sem_lock-to-smp_rmb.patch
Before you just go and hit "reply", please:
a) Consider who else should be cc'ed
b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well
c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a
reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
The -mm tree is included into linux-next and is updated
there every 3-4 working days
------------------------------------------------------
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: ipc/sem.c: change memory barrier in sem_lock() to smp_rmb()
When I fixed bugs in the sem_lock() logic, I was more conservative than
necessary. Therefore it is safe to replace the smp_mb() with smp_rmb().
And: With smp_rmb(), semop() syscalls are up to 10% faster.
The race we must protect against is:
sem->lock is free
sma->complex_count = 0
sma->sem_perm.lock held by thread B
thread A:
A: spin_lock(&sem->lock)
B: sma->complex_count++; (now 1)
B: spin_unlock(&sma->sem_perm.lock);
A: spin_is_locked(&sma->sem_perm.lock);
A: XXXXX memory barrier
A: if (sma->complex_count == 0)
Thread A must read the increased complex_count value, i.e. the read must
not be reordered with the read of sem_perm.lock done by spin_is_locked().
Since it's about ordering of reads, smp_rmb() is sufficient.
Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Rafael Aquini <aquini@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
ipc/sem.c | 12 +++++++++---
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff -puN ipc/sem.c~ipc-semc-chance-memory-barrier-in-sem_lock-to-smp_rmb ipc/sem.c
--- a/ipc/sem.c~ipc-semc-chance-memory-barrier-in-sem_lock-to-smp_rmb
+++ a/ipc/sem.c
@@ -326,10 +326,16 @@ static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_ar
/* Then check that the global lock is free */
if (!spin_is_locked(&sma->sem_perm.lock)) {
- /* spin_is_locked() is not a memory barrier */
- smp_mb();
+ /*
+ * The next test must happen after the test for
+ * sem_perm.lock, otherwise we can race with another
+ * thread that does
+ * complex_count++;spin_unlock(sem_perm.lock);
+ */
+ smp_rmb();
- /* Now repeat the test of complex_count:
+ /*
+ * Now repeat the test of complex_count:
* It can't change anymore until we drop sem->lock.
* Thus: if is now 0, then it will stay 0.
*/
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from manfred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx are
origin.patch
ipc-semc-chance-memory-barrier-in-sem_lock-to-smp_rmb.patch
ipc-semc-chance-memory-barrier-in-sem_lock-to-smp_rmb-fix.patch
ipc-semc-increase-semmsl-semmni-semopm.patch
ipc-msg-increase-msgmni-remove-scaling.patch
slab-leaks3-default-y.patch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe mm-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
