[lkml]   [2016]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: spin_lock implicit/explicit memory barrier
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:05:37AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 20:52 +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> > Hi Benjamin, Hi Michael,
> >
> > regarding commit 51d7d5205d33 ("powerpc: Add smp_mb() to 
> > arch_spin_is_locked()"):
> >
> > For the ipc/sem code, I would like to replace the spin_is_locked() with 
> > a smp_load_acquire(), see:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To my understanding, I must now add a smp_mb(), otherwise it would be 
> > broken on PowerPC:
> >
> > The approach that the memory barrier is added into spin_is_locked() 
> > doesn't work because the code doesn't use spin_is_locked().
> >
> > Correct?
> Right, otherwise you aren't properly ordered. The current powerpc locks provide
> good protection between what's inside vs. what's outside the lock but not vs.
> the lock *value* itself, so if, like you do in the sem code, use the lock
> value as something that is relevant in term of ordering, you probably need
> an explicit full barrier.
> Adding Paul McKenney.

To amplify what Ben said...

Any CPU holding a given lock will see any previous accesses made under
the protection of that lock.

A CPU -not- holding the lock can see misordering. As Ben noted, to
that non-lock-holding CPU it might appear that a write made under the
protection of that lock was made after the lock was released. Similarly,
to that CPU it might appear that a load done under the protection of that
lock completed before the lock was acquired. Finally, a CPU not holding
the lock might see a store by one CPU holding the lock as happening
after a load (from some other variable) by the next CPU holding that lock.

Thanx, Paul

 \ /
  Last update: 2016-08-10 22:41    [W:0.135 / U:9.660 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site