On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 03:46:45PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-09-27 at 13:38 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:38:53PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2013-09-27 at 08:29 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 03:10:49PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> > > > > We will need the MCS lock code for doing optimistic spinning for
> > > > > rwsem.
> > > > > Extracting the MCS code from mutex.c and put into its own file allow
> > > > > us
> > > > > to reuse this code easily for rwsem.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.c...@linux.intel.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidl...@hp.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > include/linux/mcslock.h | 58
> > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > kernel/mutex.c | 58
> > > > > +++++-----------------------------------------
> > > > > 2 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
> > > > > create mode 100644 include/linux/mcslock.h
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/mcslock.h b/include/linux/mcslock.h
> > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > index 0000000..20fd3f0
> > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > +++ b/include/linux/mcslock.h
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > + * MCS lock defines
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * This file contains the main data structure and API definitions of
> > > > > MCS lock.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +#ifndef __LINUX_MCSLOCK_H
> > > > > +#define __LINUX_MCSLOCK_H
> > > > > +
> > > > > +struct mcs_spin_node {
> > > > > + struct mcs_spin_node *next;
> > > > > + int locked; /* 1 if lock acquired */
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > + * We don't inline mcs_spin_lock() so that perf can correctly
> > > > > account for the
> > > > > + * time spent in this lock function.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +static noinline
> > > > > +void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spin_node **lock, struct mcs_spin_node
> > > > > *node)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct mcs_spin_node *prev;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* Init node */
> > > > > + node->locked = 0;
> > > > > + node->next = NULL;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + prev = xchg(lock, node);
> > > > > + if (likely(prev == NULL)) {
> > > > > + /* Lock acquired */
> > > > > + node->locked = 1;
> > > > > + return;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node;
> > > > > + smp_wmb();
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I don't immediately see the need for the smp_wmb() in either case.
>
>
> Thinking a bit more, the following could happen in Jason's
> initial patch proposal. In this case variable "prev" referenced
> by CPU1 points to "node" referenced by CPU2
>
> CPU 1 (calling lock) CPU 2 (calling unlock)
> ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node
> *next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next);
> ACCESS_ONCE(next->locked) = 1;
> node->locked = 0;
>
> Then we will be spinning forever on CPU1 as we overwrite the lock passed
> from CPU2 before we check it. The original code assign
> "node->locked = 0" before xchg does not have this issue.
> Doing the following change of moving smp_wmb immediately
> after node->locked assignment (suggested by Jason)
>
> node->locked = 0;
> smp_wmb();
> ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node;
>
> could avoid the problem, but will need closer scrutiny to see if
> there are other pitfalls if wmb happen before
>
> ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node;
I could believe that an smp_wmb() might be needed before the
"ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node;", just not after.
> > > > > + /* Wait until the lock holder passes the lock down */
> > > > > + while (!ACCESS_ONCE(node->locked))
> > > > > + arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
> >
> > However, you do need a full memory barrier here in order to ensure that
> > you see the effects of the previous lock holder's critical section.
>
> Is it necessary to add a memory barrier after acquiring
> the lock if the previous lock holder execute smp_wmb before passing
> the lock?
Yep. The previous lock holder's smp_wmb() won't keep either the compiler
or the CPU from reordering things for the new lock holder. They could for
example reorder the critical section to precede the node->locked check,
which would be very bad.
Thanx, Paul
--
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/
