[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180402193540.GB3948@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 12:35:40 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.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 Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 10:03:22AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> 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.
Unless someone objects or proposes a different course of action, I will
make this change in -rcu.
Thanx, Paul
> Alan
>
> > + */
> > static __always_inline int spin_is_locked(spinlock_t *lock)
> > {
> > return raw_spin_is_locked(&lock->rlock);
> >
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists