On 04/28/2015 02:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
A few questions: On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 02:00:48PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:static inline void arch_spin_lock(arch_spinlock_t *lock) { unsigned short head, tail; ___tns_lock(&lock->lock); /* XXX does the TNS imply a ___sync? */Does it? Something needs to provide the ACQUIRE semantics.
Yes, __insn_xxx() is a compiler barrier on tile. Tile architectures do not need any hardware-level "acquire" semantics since normally control dependency is sufficient for lock acquisition. Loads and stores are issued in-order into the mesh network, but issued loads don't block further instruction issue until a register read dependency requires it. There is no speculative execution.
head = lock->head; lock->head++; ___tns_unlock(&lock->lock); while (READ_ONCE(lock->tail) != head) cpu_relax(); } static inline void arch_spin_unlock(arch_spinlock_t *lock) { /* * can do with regular load/store because the lock owner * is the only one going to do stores to the tail */ unsigned short tail = READ_ONCE(lock->tail); smp_mb(); /* MB is stronger than RELEASE */Note that your code uses wmb(), wmb is strictly speaking not correct, as its weaker than RELEASE. _However_ it doesn't make any practical difference since all three barriers end up emitting __sync() so its not a bug per se.
Yes, this code dates back to 2.6.18 or so; today I would use smp_store_release(). I like the trend in the kernel to move more towards the C11 memory order model; I think it will help a lot. -- Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor http://www.ezchip.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
