On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 09:50:10AM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 12:00 -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > If you write to some variable with ACCESS_ONCE and use cmpxchg or xchg at
> > the same time, you break it. ACCESS_ONCE doesn't take the hashed spinlock,
> > so, in this case, cmpxchg or xchg isn't really atomic at all.
>
> So if the problem is using ACCESS_ONCE writes with cmpxchg and xchg at
> the same time, would the below change address this problem?
And one could use cmpxchg() or atomic_add_return(..., 0) to read a value
out. Probably at the cost of some performance impact, though.
Thanx, Paul
> -----
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.c b/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.c
> index 838dc9e..8396721 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.c
> @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue **lock)
> if (likely(prev == NULL))
> return true;
>
> - ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node;
> + xchg(&prev->next, node);
>
> /*
> * Normally @prev is untouchable after the above store; because at that
> @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ unqueue:
> */
>
> ACCESS_ONCE(next->prev) = prev;
> - ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = next;
> + xchg(&prev->next, next);
>
> return false;
> }
>
>
--
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/
