On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 02:08:16PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 04/06/2018 02:07 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 02:01:41PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >> On 04/06/2018 12:47 PM, Andrea Parri wrote:
> >>> There appeared to be a certain, recurrent uncertainty concerning the
> >>> semantics of spin_is_locked(), likely a consequence of the fact that
> >>> this semantics remains undocumented or that it has been historically
> >>> linked to the (likewise unclear) semantics of spin_unlock_wait().
> >>>
> >>> A recent auditing [1] of the callers of the primitive confirmed that
> >>> none of them are relying on particular ordering guarantees; document
> >>> this semantics by adding a docbook header to spin_is_locked(). Also,
> >>> describe behaviors specific to certain CONFIG_SMP=n builds.
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151981440005264&w=2
> >>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=152042843808540&w=2
> >>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=152043346110262&w=2
> >>>
> >>> Co-Developed-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.pa...@amarulasolutions.com>
> >>> Co-Developed-by: Alan Stern <st...@rowland.harvard.edu>
> >>> Co-Developed-by: David Howells <dhowe...@redhat.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.pa...@amarulasolutions.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <st...@rowland.harvard.edu>
> >>> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowe...@redhat.com>
> >>> Cc: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com>
> >>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
> >>> Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.f...@gmail.com>
> >>> Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com>
> >>> Cc: Jade Alglave <j.algl...@ucl.ac.uk>
> >>> Cc: Luc Maranget <luc.maran...@inria.fr>
> >>> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>> Cc: Akira Yokosawa <aki...@gmail.com>
> >>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org>
> >>> ---
> >>> include/linux/spinlock.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> >>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/include/linux/spinlock.h b/include/linux/spinlock.h
> >>> index 4894d322d2584..1e8a464358384 100644
> >>> --- a/include/linux/spinlock.h
> >>> +++ b/include/linux/spinlock.h
> >>> @@ -380,6 +380,24 @@ static __always_inline int
> >>> spin_trylock_irq(spinlock_t *lock)
> >>> raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(spinlock_check(lock), flags); \
> >>> })
> >>>
> >>> +/**
> >>> + * spin_is_locked() - Check whether a spinlock is locked.
> >>> + * @lock: Pointer to the spinlock.
> >>> + *
> >>> + * This function is NOT required to provide any memory ordering
> >>> + * guarantees; it could be used for debugging purposes or, when
> >>> + * additional synchronization is needed, accompanied with other
> >>> + * constructs (memory barriers) enforcing the synchronization.
> >>> + *
> >>> + * Returns: 1 if @lock is locked, 0 otherwise.
> >>
> >> Sorry, minor nit:
> >> s/Returns:/Return:/
> >> (according to kernel-doc.rst)
> >>
> >> although I agree that "Returns:" is better.
> >> [I should have changed that years ago.]
> >
> > Agreed, English grammar and templates often seem to conflict.
> >
> > So should we change this comment, or are you instead proposing to add
> > "Returns:" as valid kernel-doc?
>
> Please change this patch to current doc syntax.
> Any changes to kernel-doc syntax would come later.
Paul: I understand that you're going to do this change "in place"; please
let me know if I'm wrong/if you need a new submission.
Thanks,
Andrea
>
> Thanks.
>
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> >>> + *
> >>> + * Note that the function only tells you that the spinlock is
> >>> + * seen to be locked, not that it is locked on your CPU.
> >>> + *
> >>> + * Further, on CONFIG_SMP=n builds with CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK=n,
> >>> + * the return value is always 0 (see include/linux/spinlock_up.h).
> >>> + * Therefore you should not rely heavily on the return value.
> >>> + */
> >>> static __always_inline int spin_is_locked(spinlock_t *lock)
> >>> {
> >>> return raw_spin_is_locked(&lock->rlock);
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> ~Randy
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> ~Randy
