On 06/02/2014 12:50 PM, 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?
-----
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;
}
Doing an xchg is a very expensive operation compared with ACCESS_ONCE. I
will not suggest doing that to make it right for PA-RISC at the expense
of performance in other architectures.
-Longman
--
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/
