| 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: <1443643395-17016-3-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:03:12 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: [PATCH 2/5] locking/mutex: Use acquire/release semantics
As of 654672d4ba1 (locking/atomics: Add _{acquire|release|relaxed}()
variants of some atomic operations) and 6d79ef2d30e (locking, asm-generic:
Add _{relaxed|acquire|release}() variants for 'atomic_long_t'), weakly
ordered archs can benefit from more relaxed use of barriers when locking
and unlocking, instead of regular full barrier semantics. While currently
only arm64 supports such optimizations, updating corresponding locking
primitives serves for other archs to immediately benefit as well, once the
necessary machinery is implemented of course.
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
---
include/asm-generic/mutex-dec.h | 8 ++++----
include/asm-generic/mutex-xchg.h | 10 +++++-----
kernel/locking/mutex.c | 9 +++++----
3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/asm-generic/mutex-dec.h b/include/asm-generic/mutex-dec.h
index d4f9fb4..fd694cf 100644
--- a/include/asm-generic/mutex-dec.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/mutex-dec.h
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
static inline void
__mutex_fastpath_lock(atomic_t *count, void (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
{
- if (unlikely(atomic_dec_return(count) < 0))
+ if (unlikely(atomic_dec_return_acquire(count) < 0))
fail_fn(count);
}
@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ __mutex_fastpath_lock(atomic_t *count, void (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
static inline int
__mutex_fastpath_lock_retval(atomic_t *count)
{
- if (unlikely(atomic_dec_return(count) < 0))
+ if (unlikely(atomic_dec_return_acquire(count) < 0))
return -1;
return 0;
}
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ __mutex_fastpath_lock_retval(atomic_t *count)
static inline void
__mutex_fastpath_unlock(atomic_t *count, void (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
{
- if (unlikely(atomic_inc_return(count) <= 0))
+ if (unlikely(atomic_inc_return_release(count) <= 0))
fail_fn(count);
}
@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ __mutex_fastpath_unlock(atomic_t *count, void (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
static inline int
__mutex_fastpath_trylock(atomic_t *count, int (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
{
- if (likely(atomic_cmpxchg(count, 1, 0) == 1))
+ if (likely(atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(count, 1, 0) == 1))
return 1;
return 0;
}
diff --git a/include/asm-generic/mutex-xchg.h b/include/asm-generic/mutex-xchg.h
index f169ec0..a6b4a7b 100644
--- a/include/asm-generic/mutex-xchg.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/mutex-xchg.h
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ __mutex_fastpath_lock(atomic_t *count, void (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
* to ensure that any waiting tasks are woken up by the
* unlock slow path.
*/
- if (likely(atomic_xchg(count, -1) != 1))
+ if (likely(atomic_xchg_acquire(count, -1) != 1))
fail_fn(count);
}
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ __mutex_fastpath_lock(atomic_t *count, void (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
static inline int
__mutex_fastpath_lock_retval(atomic_t *count)
{
- if (unlikely(atomic_xchg(count, 0) != 1))
+ if (unlikely(atomic_xchg_acquire(count, 0) != 1))
if (likely(atomic_xchg(count, -1) != 1))
return -1;
return 0;
@@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ __mutex_fastpath_lock_retval(atomic_t *count)
static inline void
__mutex_fastpath_unlock(atomic_t *count, void (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
{
- if (unlikely(atomic_xchg(count, 1) != 0))
+ if (unlikely(atomic_xchg_release(count, 1) != 0))
fail_fn(count);
}
@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ __mutex_fastpath_unlock(atomic_t *count, void (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
static inline int
__mutex_fastpath_trylock(atomic_t *count, int (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
{
- int prev = atomic_xchg(count, 0);
+ int prev = atomic_xchg_acquire(count, 0);
if (unlikely(prev < 0)) {
/*
@@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ __mutex_fastpath_trylock(atomic_t *count, int (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
* owner's unlock path needlessly, but that's not a problem
* in practice. ]
*/
- prev = atomic_xchg(count, prev);
+ prev = atomic_xchg_acquire(count, prev);
if (prev < 0)
prev = 0;
}
diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index 4cccea6..0551c21 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ static inline int mutex_can_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock)
static inline bool mutex_try_to_acquire(struct mutex *lock)
{
return !mutex_is_locked(lock) &&
- (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->count, 1, 0) == 1);
+ (atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(&lock->count, 1, 0) == 1);
}
/*
@@ -529,7 +529,8 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
* Once more, try to acquire the lock. Only try-lock the mutex if
* it is unlocked to reduce unnecessary xchg() operations.
*/
- if (!mutex_is_locked(lock) && (atomic_xchg(&lock->count, 0) == 1))
+ if (!mutex_is_locked(lock) &&
+ (atomic_xchg_acquire(&lock->count, 0) == 1))
goto skip_wait;
debug_mutex_lock_common(lock, &waiter);
@@ -553,7 +554,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
* non-negative in order to avoid unnecessary xchg operations:
*/
if (atomic_read(&lock->count) >= 0 &&
- (atomic_xchg(&lock->count, -1) == 1))
+ (atomic_xchg_acquire(&lock->count, -1) == 1))
break;
/*
@@ -867,7 +868,7 @@ static inline int __mutex_trylock_slowpath(atomic_t *lock_count)
spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
- prev = atomic_xchg(&lock->count, -1);
+ prev = atomic_xchg_acquire(&lock->count, -1);
if (likely(prev == 1)) {
mutex_set_owner(lock);
mutex_acquire(&lock->dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists