[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150807114047.GD18673@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 13:40:47 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
arc-linux-dev@...opsys.com, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Hildenbrand <dahi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, ralf@...ux-mips.org,
ddaney@...iumnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] ARC: add barriers to futex code
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 03:48:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 06:05:20PM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> > The atomic ops on futex need to provide the full barrier just like
> > regular atomics in kernel.
> >
> > Also remove pagefault_enable/disable in futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic()
> > as core code already does that
>
> Urgh, and of course tglx just left for holidays :-)
>
> > +++ b/arch/arc/include/asm/futex.h
> > @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
> >
> > #define __futex_atomic_op(insn, ret, oldval, uaddr, oparg)\
> > \
> > + smp_mb(); \
> > __asm__ __volatile__( \
> > "1: llock %1, [%2] \n" \
> > insn "\n" \
> > @@ -40,12 +41,14 @@
> > \
> > : "=&r" (ret), "=&r" (oldval) \
> > : "r" (uaddr), "r" (oparg), "ir" (-EFAULT) \
> > - : "cc", "memory")
> > + : "cc", "memory"); \
> > + smp_mb(); \
> >
>
>
> So:
>
> - alhpa: only has the first smp_mb(), suggesting RELEASE
> - arm: only has the first smp_mb(), suggesting RELEASE
> - arm64: has store-release + smp_mb(), suggesting full barriers
> - MIPS: has LLSC_MB after, suggesting ACQUIRE
> - powerpc: lwsync before, sync after, full barrier
>
> x86 is of course boring and fully ordered
>
> Looking at the usage site of futex_atomic_op_inuser(), that's in
> futex_wake_op() which might suggest RELEASE is indeed sufficient.
>
> Which leaves me puzzled on MIPS, but what do I know.
So I _think_ the MIPS code is broken. The mips futex code is from 2006
and the mips smp_mb__before_llsc bits are from 2010, so its well
possible this was missed.
Ralf, David, did I miss the obvious or does the below patch make sense?
---
Subject: MIPS: Fix __futex_atomic_op() for WEAK_REORDERING_BEYOND_LLSC
Current __futex_atomic_op() doesn't have smp_mb__before_llsc(), meaning
it would allow prior load/stores to escape out and re-order against the
ll/sc itself.
While the exact requirements on __futex_atomic_op() are a little unclear
at the moment it must be either RELEASE or fully ordered, without
smp_mb__before_llsc() the MIPS code is neither.
Therefore add smp_mb__before_llsc().
Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
Cc: David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
---
arch/mips/include/asm/futex.h | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/futex.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/futex.h
index 1de190bdfb9c..2b8023b9b661 100644
--- a/arch/mips/include/asm/futex.h
+++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/futex.h
@@ -20,6 +20,8 @@
#define __futex_atomic_op(insn, ret, oldval, uaddr, oparg) \
{ \
+ smp_mb__before_llsc(); \
+ \
if (cpu_has_llsc && R10000_LLSC_WAR) { \
__asm__ __volatile__( \
" .set push \n" \
--
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