lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] riscv/locking: Strengthen spin_lock() and spin_unlock()
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 08:06:59AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:21 AM, Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr> wrote:
> >
> > That is, locks are not implemented from more basic primitive but are specified.
> > The specification can be described as behaving that way:
> > - A lock behaves as a read-modify-write. the read behaving as a read-acquire
>
> This is wrong, or perhaps just misleading.
>
> The *whole* r-m-w acts as an acquire. Not just the read part. The
> write is very much part of it.
>
> Maybe that's what you meant, but it read to me as "just the read part
> of the rmw behaves as a read-acquire".
>
> Because it is very important that the _write_ part of the rmw is also
> ordered wrt everything that is inside the spinlock.
>
> So doing a spinlock as
>
> (a) read-locked-acquire
> modify
> (c) write-conditional
>
> would be wrong, because the accesses inside the spinlock are ordered
> not just wrt the read-acquire, they have to be ordered wrt the write
> too.
>
> So it is closer to say that it's the _write_ of the r-m-w sequence
> that has the acquire semantics, not the read.

Strictly speaking, that's not what we've got implemented on arm64: only
the read part of the RmW has Acquire semantics, but there is a total
order on the lock/unlock operations for the lock. For example, if one
CPU does:

spin_lock(&lock);
WRITE_ONCE(foo, 42);

then another CPU could do:

if (smp_load_acquire(&foo) == 42)
BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&lock));

and that could fire. Is that relied on somewhere?

Will

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-26 17:26    [W:0.167 / U:2.728 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site