On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 12:36 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 09/30/2013 12:10 PM, Jason Low wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 11:51 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> On 09/28/2013 12:34 AM, Jason Low wrote:
> >>>> Also, below is what the mcs_spin_lock() and mcs_spin_unlock()
> >>>> functions would look like after applying the proposed changes.
> >>>>
> >>>> 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. No need to set node->locked since it
> >>>> won't be used */
> >>>> return;
> >>>> }
> >>>> ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node;
> >>>> /* Wait until the lock holder passes the lock down */
> >>>> while (!ACCESS_ONCE(node->locked))
> >>>> arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
> >>>> smp_mb();
> >> I wonder if a memory barrier is really needed here.
> > If the compiler can reorder the while (!ACCESS_ONCE(node->locked)) check
> > so that the check occurs after an instruction in the critical section,
> > then the barrier may be necessary.
> >
>
> In that case, just a barrier() call should be enough.
The cpu could still be executing out of order load instruction from the
critical section before checking node->locked? Probably smp_mb() is
still needed.
Tim
--
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/
