On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Tim Chen <tim.c.c...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> BTW, is the above memory barrier necessary? It seems like the xchg
> instruction already provided a memory barrier.
>
> Now if we made the changes that Jason suggested:
>
>
> /* Init node */
> - node->locked = 0;
> node->next = NULL;
>
> prev = xchg(lock, node);
> if (likely(prev == NULL)) {
> /* Lock acquired */
> - node->locked = 1;
> return;
> }
> + node->locked = 0;
> ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node;
> smp_wmb();
>
> We are probably still okay as other cpus do not read the value of
> node->locked, which is a local variable.
Similarly, I was wondering if we should also move smp_wmb() so that it
is before the ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node and after the
node->locked = 0. Would we want to guarantee that the node->locked
gets set before it is added to the linked list where a previous thread
calling mcs_spin_unlock() would potentially modify node->locked?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
