Commit 055ce0fd authored by Peter Zijlstra's avatar Peter Zijlstra Committed by Ingo Molnar
Browse files

locking/qspinlock: Add comments



I figured we need to document the spin_is_locked() and
spin_unlock_wait() constraints somwehere.

Ideally 'someone' would rewrite Documentation/atomic_ops.txt and we
could find a place in there. But currently that document is stale to
the point of hardly being useful.
Signed-off-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
parent 8d53fa19
......@@ -267,6 +267,63 @@ static __always_inline u32 __pv_wait_head_or_lock(struct qspinlock *lock,
#define queued_spin_lock_slowpath native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
#endif
/*
* Various notes on spin_is_locked() and spin_unlock_wait(), which are
* 'interesting' functions:
*
* PROBLEM: some architectures have an interesting issue with atomic ACQUIRE
* operations in that the ACQUIRE applies to the LOAD _not_ the STORE (ARM64,
* PPC). Also qspinlock has a similar issue per construction, the setting of
* the locked byte can be unordered acquiring the lock proper.
*
* This gets to be 'interesting' in the following cases, where the /should/s
* end up false because of this issue.
*
*
* CASE 1:
*
* So the spin_is_locked() correctness issue comes from something like:
*
* CPU0 CPU1
*
* global_lock(); local_lock(i)
* spin_lock(&G) spin_lock(&L[i])
* for (i) if (!spin_is_locked(&G)) {
* spin_unlock_wait(&L[i]); smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep();
* return;
* }
* // deal with fail
*
* Where it is important CPU1 sees G locked or CPU0 sees L[i] locked such
* that there is exclusion between the two critical sections.
*
* The load from spin_is_locked(&G) /should/ be constrained by the ACQUIRE from
* spin_lock(&L[i]), and similarly the load(s) from spin_unlock_wait(&L[i])
* /should/ be constrained by the ACQUIRE from spin_lock(&G).
*
* Similarly, later stuff is constrained by the ACQUIRE from CTRL+RMB.
*
*
* CASE 2:
*
* For spin_unlock_wait() there is a second correctness issue, namely:
*
* CPU0 CPU1
*
* flag = set;
* smp_mb(); spin_lock(&l)
* spin_unlock_wait(&l); if (!flag)
* // add to lockless list
* spin_unlock(&l);
* // iterate lockless list
*
* Which wants to ensure that CPU1 will stop adding bits to the list and CPU0
* will observe the last entry on the list (if spin_unlock_wait() had ACQUIRE
* semantics etc..)
*
* Where flag /should/ be ordered against the locked store of l.
*/
/*
* queued_spin_lock_slowpath() can (load-)ACQUIRE the lock before
* issuing an _unordered_ store to set _Q_LOCKED_VAL.
......
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment