[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57644A39.9080509@hpe.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:06:33 -0400
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
To: Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
<ingo@...hat.com>, <peterz@...radead.org>, <arnd@...db.de>,
<will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/qrwlock: Let qrwlock has same layout regardless
of the endian
On 06/15/2016 05:31 AM, Pan Xinhui wrote:
> This patch aims to get rid of endianness in queued_write_unlock(). We
> want to set __qrwlock->wmode to NULL, however the address is not
> &lock->cnts in big endian machine. That causes queued_write_unlock()
> write NULL to the wrong field of __qrwlock.
>
> Actually qrwlock can have same layout, IOW we can remove the #if
> __little_endian in struct __qrwlock. With such modification, we only
> need define some _QW* and _QR* with corresponding values in different
> endian systems.
>
> Suggested-by: Will Deacon<will.deacon@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Pan Xinhui<xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> change from v1:
> A typo fix which is really bad...
> thanks Will for the carefull review. :)
> ---
> include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h | 15 +++++++++++----
> kernel/locking/qrwlock.c | 10 ++++------
> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h b/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h
> index 54a8e65..28fb94a 100644
> --- a/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h
> +++ b/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h
> @@ -27,11 +27,18 @@
> /*
> * Writer states& reader shift and bias
> */
> -#define _QW_WAITING 1 /* A writer is waiting */
> -#define _QW_LOCKED 0xff /* A writer holds the lock */
> -#define _QW_WMASK 0xff /* Writer mask */
> +#ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN
> #define _QR_SHIFT 8 /* Reader count shift */
> -#define _QR_BIAS (1U<< _QR_SHIFT)
> +#define _QW_SHIFT 0 /* Writer mode shift */
> +#else
> +#define _QR_SHIFT 0 /* Reader count shift */
> +#define _QW_SHIFT 24 /* Writer mode shift */
> +#endif
> +
> +#define _QW_WAITING (1U<< _QW_SHIFT) /* A writer is waiting */
> +#define _QW_LOCKED (0xffU<< _QW_SHIFT) /* A writer holds the lock */
> +#define _QW_WMASK (0xffU<< _QW_SHIFT) /* Writer mask */
> +#define _QR_BIAS (1U<< _QR_SHIFT)
>
> /*
> * External function declarations
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> index fec0823..57d66cf 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> @@ -30,18 +30,15 @@ struct __qrwlock {
> union {
> atomic_t cnts;
> struct {
> -#ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN
> u8 wmode; /* Writer mode */
> u8 rcnts[3]; /* Reader counts */
> -#else
> - u8 rcnts[3]; /* Reader counts */
> - u8 wmode; /* Writer mode */
> -#endif
> };
> };
> arch_spinlock_t lock;
> };
>
> +#define _QW_MODEVAL(v) ((v)>> _QW_SHIFT)
I know what you are doing here, but it is a bit hard to understand it
just by looking at the name of the macro itself. Maybe some other names
like _QW_MASKVAL() or_QW_BYTEVAL(). You may also want to have a line of
comment about it. Other than that, I don't see any problem with it.
Acked-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>
> +
> /**
> * rspin_until_writer_unlock - inc reader count& spin until writer is gone
> * @lock : Pointer to queue rwlock structure
> @@ -127,7 +124,8 @@ void queued_write_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock)
> struct __qrwlock *l = (struct __qrwlock *)lock;
>
> if (!READ_ONCE(l->wmode)&&
> - (cmpxchg_relaxed(&l->wmode, 0, _QW_WAITING) == 0))
> + (cmpxchg_relaxed(&l->wmode, 0,
> + _QW_MODEVAL(_QW_WAITING)) == 0))
> break;
>
> cpu_relax_lowlatency();
Powered by blists - more mailing lists