On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 08:14:01PM +0100, Manfred Spraul wrote:

> >spinlock_t local, global;
> >bool force_global;
> >bool my_lock(bool try_local)
> >{
> >     if (try_local) {
> >             spin_lock(&local);
> >             if (!spin_is_locked(&global)) {
> >                     if (!force_global) {
> >                             return true;
> >                     }
> >             }
> >             spin_unlock(&local);
> >
> >
> >             spin_lock(&global);
> >             spin_unlock_wait(&local);
> >             return false;
> >     }
> >
> >     void my_unlock(bool drop_local)
> >     {
> >             if (drop_local)
> >                     spin_unlock(&local);
> >             else
> >                     spin_unlock(&global);
> >     }
> >}

> >Another question is do we need a barrier AFTER spin_unlock_wait(). I do not
> >know what ipc/sem.c actually needs, but in general (I think) this does need
> >mb(). Otherwise my_lock / my_unlock itself does not have the proper acq/rel
> >semantics. For example, my_lock(false) can miss the changes which were done
> >under my_lock(true).

> How could that happen?
> I thought that
> thread A:
>       protected_var = 1234;
>       spin_unlock(&lock_a)
>       
> thread B:
>       spin_lock(&lock_b)
>       if (protected_var)

> is safe. i.e, there is no need that acquire and releases is done on the same 
> pointer.

Well, just those four statements can of course be executed like:

        CPU0            CPU1

                        spin_lock(&b)
                        if (prot_var)

        prot_var = 1;
        spin_unlock(&a);

And you would see the old var. Lock a and b are completely independent
here.

Now of course the local/global thing in sysvsem is more complex.

As to what Oleg meant:

X := 0

        CPU0                            CPU1

        spin_lock(&global);
                                        spin_lock(&local);
                                        X = 1;
                                        spin_unlock(&local);
        spin_unlock_wait(&local);

        assert(X == 1); /* BOOM */

that assert can trigger, because spin_unlock_wait() are reads, the read
of X can be lifted over and above, before the assignment of X on CPU1.

Again, the sysvsem code is slightly more complex, but I think Oleg is
right, there is no guarantee you'll observe the full critical section of
sem->lock if sem_lock() takes the slow path and does sem_wait_array(),
because of the above.
--
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/

Reply via email to