linux-kernel - [tip:locking/core] locking/qspinlock: Rework some comments

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <tip-756b1df4c2c82a1cdffeafa9d2aa76c92e7fb405@git.kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 16 Oct 2018 09:04:59 -0700
From:   tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra <tipbot@...or.com>
To:     linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        will.deacon@....com, mingo@...nel.org
Subject: [tip:locking/core] locking/qspinlock: Rework some comments

Commit-ID:  756b1df4c2c82a1cdffeafa9d2aa76c92e7fb405
Gitweb:     https://git.kernel.org/tip/756b1df4c2c82a1cdffeafa9d2aa76c92e7fb405
Author:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
AuthorDate: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 13:01:19 +0200
Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CommitDate: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 17:33:54 +0200

locking/qspinlock: Rework some comments

While working my way through the code again; I felt the comments could
use help.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com
Cc: longman@...hat.com
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181003130257.156322446@infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
---
 kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
index ec343276f975..47cb99787e4d 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
@@ -326,16 +326,23 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
 	/*
 	 * trylock || pending
 	 *
-	 * 0,0,0 -> 0,0,1 ; trylock
-	 * 0,0,1 -> 0,1,1 ; pending
+	 * 0,0,* -> 0,1,* -> 0,0,1 pending, trylock
 	 */
 	val = atomic_fetch_or_acquire(_Q_PENDING_VAL, &lock->val);
+
 	/*
-	 * If we observe any contention; undo and queue.
+	 * If we observe contention, there is a concurrent locker.
+	 *
+	 * Undo and queue; our setting of PENDING might have made the
+	 * n,0,0 -> 0,0,0 transition fail and it will now be waiting
+	 * on @next to become !NULL.
 	 */
 	if (unlikely(val & ~_Q_LOCKED_MASK)) {
+
+		/* Undo PENDING if we set it. */
 		if (!(val & _Q_PENDING_MASK))
 			clear_pending(lock);
+
 		goto queue;
 	}
 
@@ -474,16 +481,25 @@ locked:
 	 */
 
 	/*
-	 * In the PV case we might already have _Q_LOCKED_VAL set.
+	 * In the PV case we might already have _Q_LOCKED_VAL set, because
+	 * of lock stealing; therefore we must also allow:
 	 *
-	 * The atomic_cond_read_acquire() call above has provided the
-	 * necessary acquire semantics required for locking.
+	 * n,0,1 -> 0,0,1
+	 *
+	 * Note: at this point: (val & _Q_PENDING_MASK) == 0, because of the
+	 *       above wait condition, therefore any concurrent setting of
+	 *       PENDING will make the uncontended transition fail.
 	 */
-	if (((val & _Q_TAIL_MASK) == tail) &&
-	    atomic_try_cmpxchg_relaxed(&lock->val, &val, _Q_LOCKED_VAL))
-		goto release; /* No contention */
+	if ((val & _Q_TAIL_MASK) == tail) {
+		if (atomic_try_cmpxchg_relaxed(&lock->val, &val, _Q_LOCKED_VAL))
+			goto release; /* No contention */
+	}
 
-	/* Either somebody is queued behind us or _Q_PENDING_VAL is set */
+	/*
+	 * Either somebody is queued behind us or _Q_PENDING_VAL got set
+	 * which will then detect the remaining tail and queue behind us
+	 * ensuring we'll see a @next.
+	 */
 	set_locked(lock);
 
 	/*