linux-kernel - [PATCH 5/5] locking/qrwlock: make use of acquire/release/relaxed atomics

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1436790687-11984-6-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:31:27 +0100
From:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Waiman.Long@...com, peterz@...radead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: [PATCH 5/5] locking/qrwlock: make use of acquire/release/relaxed atomics

The qrwlock implementation is slightly heavy in its use of memory
barriers, mainly through the use of cmpxchg and _return atomics, which
imply full barrier semantics.

This patch modifies the qrwlock code to use the more relaxed atomic
routines so that we can reduce the unnecessary barrier overhead on
weakly-ordered architectures.

Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
---
 include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h | 13 ++++++-------
 kernel/locking/qrwlock.c      | 12 ++++++------
 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h b/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h
index 930920501e33..6ab846bf6413 100644
--- a/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ static inline int queued_read_trylock(struct qrwlock *lock)
 
 	cnts = atomic_read(&lock->cnts);
 	if (likely(!(cnts & _QW_WMASK))) {
-		cnts = (u32)atomic_add_return(_QR_BIAS, &lock->cnts);
+		cnts = (u32)atomic_add_return_acquire(_QR_BIAS, &lock->cnts);
 		if (likely(!(cnts & _QW_WMASK)))
 			return 1;
 		atomic_sub(_QR_BIAS, &lock->cnts);
@@ -89,8 +89,8 @@ static inline int queued_write_trylock(struct qrwlock *lock)
 	if (unlikely(cnts))
 		return 0;
 
-	return likely(atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->cnts,
-				     cnts, cnts | _QW_LOCKED) == cnts);
+	return likely(atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(&lock->cnts,
+					     cnts, cnts | _QW_LOCKED) == cnts);
 }
 /**
  * queued_read_lock - acquire read lock of a queue rwlock
@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ static inline void queued_read_lock(struct qrwlock *lock)
 {
 	u32 cnts;
 
-	cnts = atomic_add_return(_QR_BIAS, &lock->cnts);
+	cnts = atomic_add_return_acquire(_QR_BIAS, &lock->cnts);
 	if (likely(!(cnts & _QW_WMASK)))
 		return;
 
@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ static inline void queued_read_lock(struct qrwlock *lock)
 static inline void queued_write_lock(struct qrwlock *lock)
 {
 	/* Optimize for the unfair lock case where the fair flag is 0. */
-	if (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->cnts, 0, _QW_LOCKED) == 0)
+	if (atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(&lock->cnts, 0, _QW_LOCKED) == 0)
 		return;
 
 	queued_write_lock_slowpath(lock);
@@ -130,8 +130,7 @@ static inline void queued_read_unlock(struct qrwlock *lock)
 	/*
 	 * Atomically decrement the reader count
 	 */
-	smp_mb__before_atomic();
-	atomic_sub(_QR_BIAS, &lock->cnts);
+	(void)atomic_sub_return_release(_QR_BIAS, &lock->cnts);
 }
 
 /**
diff --git a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
index a71bb3541880..879c8fab7bea 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ rspin_until_writer_unlock(struct qrwlock *lock, u32 cnts)
 {
 	while ((cnts & _QW_WMASK) == _QW_LOCKED) {
 		cpu_relax_lowlatency();
-		cnts = smp_load_acquire((u32 *)&lock->cnts);
+		cnts = atomic_read_acquire(&lock->cnts);
 	}
 }
 
@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ void queued_read_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock, u32 cnts)
 	while (atomic_read(&lock->cnts) & _QW_WMASK)
 		cpu_relax_lowlatency();
 
-	cnts = atomic_add_return(_QR_BIAS, &lock->cnts) - _QR_BIAS;
+	cnts = atomic_add_return_relaxed(_QR_BIAS, &lock->cnts) - _QR_BIAS;
 	rspin_until_writer_unlock(lock, cnts);
 
 	/*
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ void queued_write_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock)
 
 	/* Try to acquire the lock directly if no reader is present */
 	if (!atomic_read(&lock->cnts) &&
-	    (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->cnts, 0, _QW_LOCKED) == 0))
+	    (atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(&lock->cnts, 0, _QW_LOCKED) == 0))
 		goto unlock;
 
 	/*
@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ void queued_write_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock)
 	 */
 	for (;;) {
 		if (!READ_ONCE(lock->wmode) &&
-		   (cmpxchg(&lock->wmode, 0, _QW_WAITING) == 0))
+		   (cmpxchg_relaxed(&lock->wmode, 0, _QW_WAITING) == 0))
 			break;
 
 		cpu_relax_lowlatency();
@@ -120,8 +120,8 @@ void queued_write_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock)
 	for (;;) {
 		cnts = atomic_read(&lock->cnts);
 		if ((cnts == _QW_WAITING) &&
-		    (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->cnts, _QW_WAITING,
-				    _QW_LOCKED) == _QW_WAITING))
+		    (atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(&lock->cnts, _QW_WAITING,
+					    _QW_LOCKED) == _QW_WAITING))
 			break;
 
 		cpu_relax_lowlatency();
-- 
2.1.4

--
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/