| 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: <tip-e72246748ff006ab928bc774e276e6ef5542f9c5@git.kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:22:56 -0800
From: tip-bot for Tim Chen <tipbot@...or.com>
To: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...nel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org,
tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de, davidlohr@...com
Subject: [tip:core/locking] locking/mutexes/mcs:
Restructure the MCS lock defines and locking code into its own file
Commit-ID: e72246748ff006ab928bc774e276e6ef5542f9c5
Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/e72246748ff006ab928bc774e276e6ef5542f9c5
Author: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
AuthorDate: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 15:36:00 -0800
Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CommitDate: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:13:27 +0100
locking/mutexes/mcs: Restructure the MCS lock defines and locking code into its own file
We will need the MCS lock code for doing optimistic spinning for rwsem
and queued rwlock. Extracting the MCS code from mutex.c and put into
its own file allow us to reuse this code easily.
We also inline mcs_spin_lock and mcs_spin_unlock functions
for better efficiency.
Note that using the smp_load_acquire/smp_store_release pair used in
mcs_lock and mcs_unlock is not sufficient to form a full memory barrier
across cpus for many architectures (except x86). For applications that
absolutely need a full barrier across multiple cpus with mcs_unlock and
mcs_lock pair, smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() should be used after mcs_lock.
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1390347360.3138.63.camel@schen9-DESK
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
---
include/linux/mcs_spinlock.h | 77 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
include/linux/mutex.h | 5 +--
kernel/locking/mutex.c | 68 ++++----------------------------------
3 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/mcs_spinlock.h b/include/linux/mcs_spinlock.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9578ef8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/include/linux/mcs_spinlock.h
@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+/*
+ * MCS lock defines
+ *
+ * This file contains the main data structure and API definitions of 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
+ * to acquire the lock spinning on a local variable.
+ * It avoids expensive cache bouncings that common test-and-set spin-lock
+ * implementations incur.
+ */
+#ifndef __LINUX_MCS_SPINLOCK_H
+#define __LINUX_MCS_SPINLOCK_H
+
+struct mcs_spinlock {
+ struct mcs_spinlock *next;
+ int locked; /* 1 if lock acquired */
+};
+
+/*
+ * Note: the smp_load_acquire/smp_store_release pair is not
+ * sufficient to form a full memory barrier across
+ * cpus for many architectures (except x86) for mcs_unlock and mcs_lock.
+ * For applications that need a full barrier across multiple cpus
+ * with mcs_unlock and mcs_lock pair, smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() should be
+ * used after mcs_lock.
+ */
+static inline
+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 */
+ node->locked = 1;
+ return;
+ }
+ ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node;
+ /*
+ * Wait until the lock holder passes the lock down.
+ * Using smp_load_acquire() provides a memory barrier that
+ * ensures subsequent operations happen after the lock is acquired.
+ */
+ while (!(smp_load_acquire(&node->locked)))
+ arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
+}
+
+static inline
+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 (cmpxchg(lock, node, NULL) == node)
+ return;
+ /* Wait until the next pointer is set */
+ while (!(next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next)))
+ arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
+ }
+ /*
+ * Pass lock to next waiter.
+ * smp_store_release() provides a memory barrier to ensure
+ * all operations in the critical section has been completed
+ * before unlocking.
+ */
+ smp_store_release(&next->locked, 1);
+}
+
+#endif /* __LINUX_MCS_SPINLOCK_H */
diff --git a/include/linux/mutex.h b/include/linux/mutex.h
index d318193..c482e1d 100644
--- a/include/linux/mutex.h
+++ b/include/linux/mutex.h
@@ -46,6 +46,7 @@
* - detects multi-task circular deadlocks and prints out all affected
* locks and tasks (and only those tasks)
*/
+struct mcs_spinlock;
struct mutex {
/* 1: unlocked, 0: locked, negative: locked, possible waiters */
atomic_t count;
@@ -55,7 +56,7 @@ struct mutex {
struct task_struct *owner;
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER
- void *spin_mlock; /* Spinner MCS lock */
+ struct mcs_spinlock *mcs_lock; /* Spinner MCS lock */
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES
const char *name;
@@ -179,4 +180,4 @@ extern int atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock(atomic_t *cnt, struct mutex *lock);
# define arch_mutex_cpu_relax() cpu_relax()
#endif
-#endif
+#endif /* __LINUX_MUTEX_H */
diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index fbbd2ed..45fe1b5 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
#include <linux/spinlock.h>
#include <linux/interrupt.h>
#include <linux/debug_locks.h>
+#include <linux/mcs_spinlock.h>
/*
* In the DEBUG case we are using the "NULL fastpath" for mutexes,
@@ -52,7 +53,7 @@ __mutex_init(struct mutex *lock, const char *name, struct lock_class_key *key)
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&lock->wait_list);
mutex_clear_owner(lock);
#ifdef CONFIG_MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER
- lock->spin_mlock = NULL;
+ lock->mcs_lock = NULL;
#endif
debug_mutex_init(lock, name, key);
@@ -111,62 +112,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(mutex_lock);
* more or less simultaneously, the spinners need to acquire a MCS lock
* first before spinning on the owner field.
*
- * We don't inline mspin_lock() so that perf can correctly account for the
- * time spent in this lock function.
*/
-struct mspin_node {
- struct mspin_node *next ;
- int locked; /* 1 if lock acquired */
-};
-#define MLOCK(mutex) ((struct mspin_node **)&((mutex)->spin_mlock))
-
-static noinline
-void mspin_lock(struct mspin_node **lock, struct mspin_node *node)
-{
- struct mspin_node *prev;
-
- /* Init node */
- node->locked = 0;
- node->next = NULL;
-
- prev = xchg(lock, node);
- if (likely(prev == NULL)) {
- /* Lock acquired */
- node->locked = 1;
- return;
- }
- ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node;
- /*
- * Wait until the lock holder passes the lock down.
- * Using smp_load_acquire() provides a memory barrier that
- * ensures subsequent operations happen after the lock is acquired.
- */
- while (!(smp_load_acquire(&node->locked)))
- arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
-}
-
-static void mspin_unlock(struct mspin_node **lock, struct mspin_node *node)
-{
- struct mspin_node *next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next);
-
- if (likely(!next)) {
- /*
- * Release the lock by setting it to NULL
- */
- if (cmpxchg(lock, node, NULL) == node)
- return;
- /* Wait until the next pointer is set */
- while (!(next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next)))
- arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
- }
- /*
- * Pass lock to next waiter.
- * smp_store_release() provides a memory barrier to ensure
- * all operations in the critical section has been completed
- * before unlocking.
- */
- smp_store_release(&next->locked, 1);
-}
/*
* Mutex spinning code migrated from kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -456,7 +402,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
for (;;) {
struct task_struct *owner;
- struct mspin_node node;
+ struct mcs_spinlock node;
if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx->acquired > 0) {
struct ww_mutex *ww;
@@ -478,10 +424,10 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
* If there's an owner, wait for it to either
* release the lock or go to sleep.
*/
- mspin_lock(MLOCK(lock), &node);
+ mcs_spin_lock(&lock->mcs_lock, &node);
owner = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->owner);
if (owner && !mutex_spin_on_owner(lock, owner)) {
- mspin_unlock(MLOCK(lock), &node);
+ mcs_spin_unlock(&lock->mcs_lock, &node);
goto slowpath;
}
@@ -496,11 +442,11 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
}
mutex_set_owner(lock);
- mspin_unlock(MLOCK(lock), &node);
+ mcs_spin_unlock(&lock->mcs_lock, &node);
preempt_enable();
return 0;
}
- mspin_unlock(MLOCK(lock), &node);
+ mcs_spin_unlock(&lock->mcs_lock, &node);
/*
* When there's no owner, we might have preempted between the
--
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