lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:30:00 -0700 From: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com> To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com> Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>, Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] MCS Lock: Restructure the MCS lock defines and locking code into its own file On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com> wrote: > On 09/26/2013 06:42 PM, Jason Low wrote: >> >> On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 14:41 -0700, Tim Chen wrote: >>> >>> Okay, that would makes sense for consistency because we always >>> first set node->lock = 0 at the top of the function. >>> >>> If we prefer to optimize this a bit though, perhaps we can >>> first move the node->lock = 0 so that it gets executed after the >>> "if (likely(prev == NULL)) {}" code block and then delete >>> "node->lock = 1" inside the code block. >>> >>> static noinline >>> void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spin_node **lock, struct mcs_spin_node >>> *node) >>> { >>> struct mcs_spin_node *prev; >>> >>> /* Init node */ >>> node->next = NULL; >>> >>> prev = xchg(lock, node); >>> if (likely(prev == NULL)) { >>> /* Lock acquired */ >>> return; >>> } >>> node->locked = 0; > > > You can remove the locked flag setting statement inside if (prev == NULL), > but you can't clear the locked flag after xchg(). In the interval between > xchg() and locked=0, the previous lock owner may come in and set the flag. > Now if your clear it, the thread will loop forever. You have to clear it > before xchg(). Yes, in my most recent version, I left locked = 0 in its original place so that the xchg() can act as a barrier for it. The other option would have been to put another barrier after locked = 0. I went with leaving locked = 0 in its original place so that we don't need that extra barrier. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists