[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180403193139.GA6143@andrea>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 21:31:39 +0200
From: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.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>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.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 Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 04:23:07PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but I don't understand your objection: are you suggesting to add
> > something like "Always return 0 on !SMP" to the comment? what else?
>
> Something like that, possibly along with a warning that this might not be what
> you want. You might actually want it to return true on !SMP, it depends on
> what you're using it for.
I ended up with the following revision. I hesitated on whether to refer
to 'include/linux/spinlock_up.h' or not, but in the end I decided to not
include the reference. Please let me know what you think about this.
Andrea
>From 85f2d12d4ad9769cc9f69cc5f447fdb8c5ed4d14 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 21:23:07 +0200
Subject: [PATCH v3 1/3] locking: Document the semantics of spin_is_locked()
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 <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.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 | 14 ++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/spinlock.h b/include/linux/spinlock.h
index 4894d322d2584..636a4436191c1 100644
--- a/include/linux/spinlock.h
+++ b/include/linux/spinlock.h
@@ -380,6 +380,20 @@ 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.
+ *
+ * Remark that this primitve can return a fixed value
+ * under certain !SMP configurations.
+ */
static __always_inline int spin_is_locked(spinlock_t *lock)
{
return raw_spin_is_locked(&lock->rlock);
--
2.7.4
>
> David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists