On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:49:00PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Doesn't it need mb() before "state = readers_slow" to ensure
> > > "release" semantics?
> __percpu_down_read() lacks another mb() after the "state != BLOCK"
> check for the same reason, and we can use smp_load_acquire(state)
> instead.
I made the below modification to the patch.
---
--- a/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
@@ -51,7 +51,11 @@ void __percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw
smp_mb(); /* A matches D */
- if (likely(sem->state != readers_block))
+ /*
+ * If !readers_block the critical section starts here, matched by the
+ * release in percpu_up_write().
+ */
+ if (likely(smp_load_acquire(sem->state) != readers_block))
return;
/*
@@ -154,8 +158,11 @@ void percpu_up_write(struct percpu_rw_se
* One reason that we cannot just immediately flip to readers_fast is
* that new readers might fail to see the results of this writer's
* critical section.
+ *
+ * Therefore we force it through the slow path which guarantees an
+ * acquire and thereby guarantees the critical section's consistency.
*/
- sem->state = readers_slow;
+ smp_store_release(sem->state, readers_slow);
/*
* Release the write lock, this will allow readers back in the game.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
