[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1804021001130.1415-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 10:03:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] locking: Document the semantics of spin_is_locked()
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, Andrea Parri wrote:
> There appeared to be a certain, recurrent uncertainty concerning the
> semantics of spin_is_locked(), likely a consequence of the fact that
> this semantics remains undocumented or that it has been historically
> linked to the (likewise unclear) semantics of spin_unlock_wait().
>
> A recent auditing [1] of the callers of the primitive confirmed that
> none of them are relying on particular ordering guarantees; document
> this semantics by adding a docbook header to spin_is_locked().
>
> [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151981440005264&w=2
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
> Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
> Cc: Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>
> Cc: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>
> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> ---
> include/linux/spinlock.h | 11 +++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/spinlock.h b/include/linux/spinlock.h
> index 4894d322d2584..2639fdc9a916c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/spinlock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/spinlock.h
> @@ -380,6 +380,17 @@ static __always_inline int spin_trylock_irq(spinlock_t *lock)
> raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(spinlock_check(lock), flags); \
> })
>
> +/**
> + * spin_is_locked() - Check whether a spinlock is locked.
> + * @lock: Pointer to the spinlock.
> + *
> + * This function is NOT required to provide any memory ordering
> + * guarantees; it could be used for debugging purposes or, when
> + * additional synchronization is needed, accompanied with other
> + * constructs (memory barriers) enforcing the synchronization.
> + *
> + * Return: 1, if @lock is (found to be) locked; 0, otherwise.
This is a good addition. But please remove the parenthetical phrase.
Or if you prefer to keep it, at least remove the parentheses.
Alan
> + */
> static __always_inline int spin_is_locked(spinlock_t *lock)
> {
> return raw_spin_is_locked(&lock->rlock);
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists