[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <tip-55eed755c6e30a89be3a791a6b0ad208aadd9bdc@git.kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 03:46:15 -0700
From: tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra <tipbot@...or.com>
To: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, adobriyan@...il.com, hpa@...or.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...nel.org
Subject: [tip:locking/core] locking/seqcount: Re-fix
raw_read_seqcount_latch()
Commit-ID: 55eed755c6e30a89be3a791a6b0ad208aadd9bdc
Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/55eed755c6e30a89be3a791a6b0ad208aadd9bdc
Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
AuthorDate: Fri, 27 May 2016 13:11:17 +0200
Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CommitDate: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 08:37:25 +0200
locking/seqcount: Re-fix raw_read_seqcount_latch()
Commit 50755bc1c305 ("seqlock: fix raw_read_seqcount_latch()") broke
raw_read_seqcount_latch().
If you look at the comment that was modified; the thing that changes is
the seq count, not the latch pointer.
* void latch_modify(struct latch_struct *latch, ...)
* {
* smp_wmb(); <- Ensure that the last data[1] update is visible
* latch->seq++;
* smp_wmb(); <- Ensure that the seqcount update is visible
*
* modify(latch->data[0], ...);
*
* smp_wmb(); <- Ensure that the data[0] update is visible
* latch->seq++;
* smp_wmb(); <- Ensure that the seqcount update is visible
*
* modify(latch->data[1], ...);
* }
*
* The query will have a form like:
*
* struct entry *latch_query(struct latch_struct *latch, ...)
* {
* struct entry *entry;
* unsigned seq, idx;
*
* do {
* seq = lockless_dereference(latch->seq);
So here we have:
seq = READ_ONCE(latch->seq);
smp_read_barrier_depends();
Which is exactly what we want; the new code:
seq = ({ p = READ_ONCE(latch);
smp_read_barrier_depends(); p })->seq;
is just wrong; because it looses the volatile read on seq, which can now
be torn or worse 'optimized'. And the read_depend barrier is also placed
wrong, we want it after the load of seq, to match the above data[]
up-to-date wmb()s.
Such that when we dereference latch->data[] below, we're guaranteed to
observe the right data.
*
* idx = seq & 0x01;
* entry = data_query(latch->data[idx], ...);
*
* smp_rmb();
* } while (seq != latch->seq);
*
* return entry;
* }
So yes, not passing a pointer is not pretty, but the code was correct,
and isn't anymore now.
Change to explicit READ_ONCE()+smp_read_barrier_depends() to avoid
confusion and allow strict lockless_dereference() checking.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Fixes: 50755bc1c305 ("seqlock: fix raw_read_seqcount_latch()")
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160527111117.GL3192@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
---
include/linux/seqlock.h | 7 +++++--
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/seqlock.h b/include/linux/seqlock.h
index 7973a82..ead9765 100644
--- a/include/linux/seqlock.h
+++ b/include/linux/seqlock.h
@@ -277,7 +277,10 @@ static inline void raw_write_seqcount_barrier(seqcount_t *s)
static inline int raw_read_seqcount_latch(seqcount_t *s)
{
- return lockless_dereference(s)->sequence;
+ int seq = READ_ONCE(s->sequence);
+ /* Pairs with the first smp_wmb() in raw_write_seqcount_latch() */
+ smp_read_barrier_depends();
+ return seq;
}
/**
@@ -331,7 +334,7 @@ static inline int raw_read_seqcount_latch(seqcount_t *s)
* unsigned seq, idx;
*
* do {
- * seq = lockless_dereference(latch)->seq;
+ * seq = raw_read_seqcount_latch(&latch->seq);
*
* idx = seq & 0x01;
* entry = data_query(latch->data[idx], ...);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists