From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pd0-f169.google.com (mail-pd0-f169.google.com [209.85.192.169]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48B2E6B0031 for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 20:02:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f169.google.com with SMTP id r10so3260052pdi.28 for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 17:02:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1380326552.12518.10.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] MCS Lock: Restructure the MCS lock defines and locking code into its own file From: Davidlohr Bueso Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 17:02:32 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <1380147049.3467.67.camel@schen9-DESK> <20130927152953.GA4464@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1380310733.3467.118.camel@schen9-DESK> <20130927203858.GB9093@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1380322005.3467.186.camel@schen9-DESK> <20130927230137.GE9093@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Jason Low Cc: Paul McKenney , Tim Chen , Waiman Long , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , Alex Shi , Andi Kleen , Michel Lespinasse , Davidlohr Bueso , Matthew R Wilcox , Dave Hansen , Peter Zijlstra , Rik van Riel , Peter Hurley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm On Fri, 2013-09-27 at 16:54 -0700, Jason Low wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Paul E. McKenney > wrote: > > Yep. The previous lock holder's smp_wmb() won't keep either the compiler > > or the CPU from reordering things for the new lock holder. They could for > > example reorder the critical section to precede the node->locked check, > > which would be very bad. > > Paul, Tim, Longman, > > How would you like the proposed changes below? > > --- > Subject: [PATCH] MCS: optimizations and barrier corrections We *really* need to comment those barriers - explicitly that is :) > > Delete the node->locked = 1 assignment if the lock is free as it won't be used. > > Delete the smp_wmb() in mcs_spin_lock() and add a full memory barrier at the > end of the mcs_spin_lock() function. As Paul McKenney suggested, "you do need a > full memory barrier here in order to ensure that you see the effects of the > previous lock holder's critical section." And in the mcs_spin_unlock(), move the > memory barrier so that it is before the "ACCESS_ONCE(next->locked) = 1;". > > Signed-off-by: Jason Low > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney > Signed-off-by: Tim Chen > --- > include/linux/mcslock.h | 7 +++---- > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/mcslock.h b/include/linux/mcslock.h > index 20fd3f0..edd57d2 100644 > --- a/include/linux/mcslock.h > +++ b/include/linux/mcslock.h > @@ -26,15 +26,14 @@ void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spin_node **lock, > struct mcs_spin_node *node) > > prev = xchg(lock, node); > if (likely(prev == NULL)) { > - /* Lock acquired */ > - node->locked = 1; > + /* Lock acquired. No need to set node->locked since it > won't be used */ Then, we need to explain/comment then the relationship between this situation and the locked being set in mspin_unlock(), passing the lock holder down the list. > return; > } > ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node; > - smp_wmb(); > /* Wait until the lock holder passes the lock down */ > while (!ACCESS_ONCE(node->locked)) > arch_mutex_cpu_relax(); > + smp_mb(); > } > > static void mcs_spin_unlock(struct mcs_spin_node **lock, struct > mcs_spin_node *node) > @@ -51,8 +50,8 @@ static void mcs_spin_unlock(struct mcs_spin_node > **lock, struct mcs_spin_node *n > while (!(next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next))) > arch_mutex_cpu_relax(); > } > - ACCESS_ONCE(next->locked) = 1; > smp_wmb(); > + ACCESS_ONCE(next->locked) = 1; > } > > #endif -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org