| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20140120023215.GK10038@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:32:15 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>,
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>,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
"Figo.zhang" <figo1802@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/6] MCS Lock: Move mcs_lock/unlock function into its
own file
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 04:08:24PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
> The following changes are made:
>
> 1) Create a new mcs_spinlock.c file to contain the
> mcs_spin_lock() and mcs_spin_unlock() function.
> 2) Include a number of prerequisite header files and define
> arch_mutex_cpu_relax(), if not previously defined so the
> mcs functions can be compiled for multiple architecture without
> causing problems.
>
> From: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
> Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> include/linux/mcs_spinlock.h | 56 ++--------------------
> kernel/locking/Makefile | 6 +--
> .../locking/mcs_spinlock.c | 33 ++++++-------
> 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 71 deletions(-)
> copy include/linux/mcs_spinlock.h => kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.c (75%)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/mcs_spinlock.h b/include/linux/mcs_spinlock.h
> index 96f14299..d54bb23 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mcs_spinlock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mcs_spinlock.h
> @@ -17,57 +17,9 @@ struct mcs_spinlock {
> int locked; /* 1 if lock acquired */
> };
>
> -/*
> - * In order to acquire the lock, the caller should declare a local node and
> - * pass a reference of the node to this function in addition to the lock.
> - * If the lock has already been acquired, then this will proceed to spin
> - * on this node->locked until the previous lock holder sets the node->locked
> - * in mcs_spin_unlock().
> - *
> - * We don't inline mcs_spin_lock() so that perf can correctly account for the
> - * time spent in this lock function.
> - */
> -static noinline
> -void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
> -{
> - struct mcs_spinlock *prev;
> -
> - /* Init node */
> - node->locked = 0;
> - node->next = NULL;
> -
> - prev = xchg(lock, node);
> - if (likely(prev == NULL)) {
> - /* Lock acquired */
> - return;
> - }
> - ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node;
> - smp_wmb();
> - /* Wait until the lock holder passes the lock down */
> - while (!ACCESS_ONCE(node->locked))
> - arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
> -}
> -
> -/*
> - * Releases the lock. The caller should pass in the corresponding node that
> - * was used to acquire the lock.
> - */
> -static void mcs_spin_unlock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
> -{
> - struct mcs_spinlock *next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next);
> -
> - if (likely(!next)) {
> - /*
> - * Release the lock by setting it to NULL
> - */
> - if (likely(cmpxchg(lock, node, NULL) == node))
> - return;
> - /* Wait until the next pointer is set */
> - while (!(next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next)))
> - arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
> - }
> - ACCESS_ONCE(next->locked) = 1;
> - smp_wmb();
> -}
> +extern
> +void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node);
> +extern
> +void mcs_spin_unlock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node);
>
> #endif /* __LINUX_MCS_SPINLOCK_H */
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/Makefile b/kernel/locking/Makefile
> index baab8e5..20d9d5c 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/Makefile
> +++ b/kernel/locking/Makefile
> @@ -13,12 +13,12 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_LOCKDEP) += lockdep.o
> ifeq ($(CONFIG_PROC_FS),y)
> obj-$(CONFIG_LOCKDEP) += lockdep_proc.o
> endif
> -obj-$(CONFIG_SMP) += spinlock.o
> -obj-$(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING) += spinlock.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_SMP) += spinlock.o mcs_spinlock.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING) += spinlock.o mcs_spinlock.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_RT_MUTEXES) += rtmutex.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES) += rtmutex-debug.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_RT_MUTEX_TESTER) += rtmutex-tester.o
> -obj-$(CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK) += spinlock.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK) += spinlock.o mcs_spinlock.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK) += spinlock_debug.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_RWSEM_GENERIC_SPINLOCK) += rwsem-spinlock.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_RWSEM_XCHGADD_ALGORITHM) += rwsem-xadd.o
> diff --git a/include/linux/mcs_spinlock.h b/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.c
> similarity index 75%
> copy from include/linux/mcs_spinlock.h
> copy to kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.c
> index 96f14299..44fb092 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mcs_spinlock.h
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.c
> @@ -1,7 +1,5 @@
> /*
> - * MCS lock defines
> - *
> - * This file contains the main data structure and API definitions of MCS lock.
> + * MCS lock
> *
> * The MCS lock (proposed by Mellor-Crummey and Scott) is a simple spin-lock
> * with the desirable properties of being fair, and with each cpu trying
> @@ -9,13 +7,20 @@
> * It avoids expensive cache bouncings that common test-and-set spin-lock
> * implementations incur.
> */
> -#ifndef __LINUX_MCS_SPINLOCK_H
> -#define __LINUX_MCS_SPINLOCK_H
> +/*
> + * asm/processor.h may define arch_mutex_cpu_relax().
> + * If it is not defined, cpu_relax() will be used.
> + */
> +#include <asm/barrier.h>
> +#include <asm/cmpxchg.h>
> +#include <asm/processor.h>
> +#include <linux/compiler.h>
> +#include <linux/mcs_spinlock.h>
> +#include <linux/export.h>
>
> -struct mcs_spinlock {
> - struct mcs_spinlock *next;
> - int locked; /* 1 if lock acquired */
> -};
> +#ifndef arch_mutex_cpu_relax
> +# define arch_mutex_cpu_relax() cpu_relax()
> +#endif
>
> /*
> * In order to acquire the lock, the caller should declare a local node and
> @@ -23,11 +28,7 @@ struct mcs_spinlock {
> * If the lock has already been acquired, then this will proceed to spin
> * on this node->locked until the previous lock holder sets the node->locked
> * in mcs_spin_unlock().
> - *
> - * We don't inline mcs_spin_lock() so that perf can correctly account for the
> - * time spent in this lock function.
> */
> -static noinline
> void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
> {
> struct mcs_spinlock *prev;
> @@ -47,12 +48,13 @@ void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
> while (!ACCESS_ONCE(node->locked))
> arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
> }
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mcs_spin_lock);
>
> /*
> * Releases the lock. The caller should pass in the corresponding node that
> * was used to acquire the lock.
> */
> -static void mcs_spin_unlock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
> +void mcs_spin_unlock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
> {
> struct mcs_spinlock *next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next);
>
> @@ -69,5 +71,4 @@ static void mcs_spin_unlock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *nod
> ACCESS_ONCE(next->locked) = 1;
> smp_wmb();
> }
> -
> -#endif /* __LINUX_MCS_SPINLOCK_H */
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mcs_spin_unlock);
> --
> 1.7.11.7
>
>
>
--
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