[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 08/26] locking: Remove spin_unlock_wait() generic definitions
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 03:18:40PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 02:13:39PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 05:38:15AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > I also need to check all uses of spin_is_locked(). There might no
> > > longer be any that rely on any particular ordering...
> >
> > Right. I think we're looking for the "insane case" as per 38b850a73034
> > (which was apparently used by ipc/sem.c at the time, but no longer).
> >
> > There's a usage in kernel/debug/debug_core.c, but it doesn't fill me with
> > joy.
> That is indeed an interesting one... But my first round will be what
> semantics the implementations seem to provide:
> Acquire courtesy of TSO: s390, sparc, x86.
> Acquire: ia64 (in reality fully ordered).
> Control dependency: alpha, arc, arm, blackfin, hexagon, m32r, mn10300, tile,
> xtensa.
> Control dependency plus leading full barrier: arm64, powerpc.
> UP-only: c6x, cris, frv, h8300, m68k, microblaze nios2, openrisc, um, unicore32.
> Special cases:
> Otherwise control dependency?
> mips: Control dependency, acquire if CONFIG_CPU_CAVIUM_OCTEON.
> parisc: Acquire courtesy of TSO, but why barrier in smp_load_acquire?
> sh: Acquire if one of SH4A, SH5, or J2, otherwise acquire? UP-only?
> Are these correct, or am I missing something with any of them?

That looks about right but, at least on ARM, I think we have to consider
the semantics of spin_is_locked with respect to the other spin_* functions,
rather than in isolation.

For example, ARM only has a control dependency, but spin_lock has a trailing
smp_mb() and spin_unlock has both leading and trailing smp_mb().


 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-03 15:15    [W:0.098 / U:9.428 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site