On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 08:32:41PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> When I fixed bugs in the sem_lock() logic, I was more conservative than
> necessary.
> Therefore it is safe to replace the smp_mb() with smp_rmb().
> And: With smp_rmb(), semop() syscalls are up to 10% faster.
> 
> The race we must protect against is:
> 
>       sem->lock is free
>       sma->complex_count = 0
>       sma->sem_perm.lock held by thread B
> 
> thread A:
> 
> A: spin_lock(&sem->lock)
> 
>                       B: sma->complex_count++; (now 1)
>                       B: spin_unlock(&sma->sem_perm.lock);
> 
> A: spin_is_locked(&sma->sem_perm.lock);
> A: XXXXX memory barrier
> A: if (sma->complex_count == 0)
> 
> Thread A must read the increased complex_count value, i.e. the read must
> not be reordered with the read of sem_perm.lock done by spin_is_locked().
> 
> Since it's about ordering of reads, smp_rmb() is sufficient.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manf...@colorfullife.com>
> ---
>  ipc/sem.c | 12 +++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
> index 454f6c6..ffc71de 100644
> --- a/ipc/sem.c
> +++ b/ipc/sem.c
> @@ -326,10 +326,16 @@ static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_array *sma, 
> struct sembuf *sops,
>  
>               /* Then check that the global lock is free */
>               if (!spin_is_locked(&sma->sem_perm.lock)) {
> -                     /* spin_is_locked() is not a memory barrier */
> -                     smp_mb();
> +                     /*
> +                      * The next test must happen after the test for
> +                      * sem_perm.lock, otherwise we can race with another
> +                      * thread that does
> +                      *      complex_count++;spin_unlock(sem_perm.lock);
> +                      */
> +                     smp_rmb();
>  
> -                     /* Now repeat the test of complex_count:
> +                     /*
> +                      * Now repeat the test of complex_count:
>                        * It can't change anymore until we drop sem->lock.
>                        * Thus: if is now 0, then it will stay 0.
>                        */
> -- 
> 1.9.3
> 
Acked-by: Rafael Aquini <aqu...@redhat.com>
--
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/

Reply via email to