[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <lsq.1461711741.29565446@decadent.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 01:02:21 +0200
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
CC: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Joonsoo Kim" <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Christoph Lameter" <cl@...ux.com>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"David Rientjes" <rientjes@...gle.com>,
"Helge Deller" <deller@....de>,
"Vineet Gupta" <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...nel.org>,
"Noam Camus" <noamc@...hip.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.16 130/217] bitops: Do not default to __clear_bit() for
__clear_bit_unlock()
3.16.35-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
commit f75d48644c56a31731d17fa693c8175328957e1d upstream.
__clear_bit_unlock() is a special little snowflake. While it carries the
non-atomic '__' prefix, it is specifically documented to pair with
test_and_set_bit() and therefore should be 'somewhat' atomic.
Therefore the generic implementation of __clear_bit_unlock() cannot use
the fully non-atomic __clear_bit() as a default.
If an arch is able to do better; is must provide an implementation of
__clear_bit_unlock() itself.
Specifically, this came up as a result of hackbench livelock'ing in
slab_lock() on ARC with SMP + SLUB + !LLSC.
The issue was incorrect pairing of atomic ops.
slab_lock() -> bit_spin_lock() -> test_and_set_bit()
slab_unlock() -> __bit_spin_unlock() -> __clear_bit()
The non serializing __clear_bit() was getting "lost"
80543b8e: ld_s r2,[r13,0] <--- (A) Finds PG_locked is set
80543b90: or r3,r2,1 <--- (B) other core unlocks right here
80543b94: st_s r3,[r13,0] <--- (C) sets PG_locked (overwrites unlock)
Fixes ARC STAR 9000817404 (and probably more).
Reported-by: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
Tested-by: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Helge Deller <deller@....de>
Cc: James E.J. Bottomley <jejb@...isc-linux.org>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Noam Camus <noamc@...hip.com>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160309114054.GJ6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
---
include/asm-generic/bitops/lock.h | 14 +++++++-------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
--- a/include/asm-generic/bitops/lock.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/bitops/lock.h
@@ -29,16 +29,16 @@ do { \
* @nr: the bit to set
* @addr: the address to start counting from
*
- * This operation is like clear_bit_unlock, however it is not atomic.
- * It does provide release barrier semantics so it can be used to unlock
- * a bit lock, however it would only be used if no other CPU can modify
- * any bits in the memory until the lock is released (a good example is
- * if the bit lock itself protects access to the other bits in the word).
+ * A weaker form of clear_bit_unlock() as used by __bit_lock_unlock(). If all
+ * the bits in the word are protected by this lock some archs can use weaker
+ * ops to safely unlock.
+ *
+ * See for example x86's implementation.
*/
#define __clear_bit_unlock(nr, addr) \
do { \
- smp_mb(); \
- __clear_bit(nr, addr); \
+ smp_mb__before_atomic(); \
+ clear_bit(nr, addr); \
} while (0)
#endif /* _ASM_GENERIC_BITOPS_LOCK_H_ */
Powered by blists - more mailing lists