[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200921162040.097611100@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 18:28:13 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Hou Tao <houtao1@...wei.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 5.8 081/118] locking/percpu-rwsem: Use this_cpu_{inc,dec}() for read_count
From: Hou Tao <houtao1@...wei.com>
[ Upstream commit e6b1a44eccfcab5e5e280be376f65478c3b2c7a2 ]
The __this_cpu*() accessors are (in general) IRQ-unsafe which, given
that percpu-rwsem is a blocking primitive, should be just fine.
However, file_end_write() is used from IRQ context and will cause
load-store issues on architectures where the per-cpu accessors are not
natively irq-safe.
Fix it by using the IRQ-safe this_cpu_*() for operations on
read_count. This will generate more expensive code on a number of
platforms, which might cause a performance regression for some of the
other percpu-rwsem users.
If any such is reported, we can consider alternative solutions.
Fixes: 70fe2f48152e ("aio: fix freeze protection of aio writes")
Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@...wei.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200915140750.137881-1-houtao1@huawei.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h | 8 ++++----
kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h b/include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h
index 5e033fe1ff4e9..5fda40f97fe91 100644
--- a/include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h
+++ b/include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ static inline void percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
* anything we did within this RCU-sched read-size critical section.
*/
if (likely(rcu_sync_is_idle(&sem->rss)))
- __this_cpu_inc(*sem->read_count);
+ this_cpu_inc(*sem->read_count);
else
__percpu_down_read(sem, false); /* Unconditional memory barrier */
/*
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ static inline bool percpu_down_read_trylock(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
* Same as in percpu_down_read().
*/
if (likely(rcu_sync_is_idle(&sem->rss)))
- __this_cpu_inc(*sem->read_count);
+ this_cpu_inc(*sem->read_count);
else
ret = __percpu_down_read(sem, true); /* Unconditional memory barrier */
preempt_enable();
@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ static inline void percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
* Same as in percpu_down_read().
*/
if (likely(rcu_sync_is_idle(&sem->rss))) {
- __this_cpu_dec(*sem->read_count);
+ this_cpu_dec(*sem->read_count);
} else {
/*
* slowpath; reader will only ever wake a single blocked
@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ static inline void percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
* aggregate zero, as that is the only time it matters) they
* will also see our critical section.
*/
- __this_cpu_dec(*sem->read_count);
+ this_cpu_dec(*sem->read_count);
rcuwait_wake_up(&sem->writer);
}
preempt_enable();
diff --git a/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
index 8bbafe3e5203d..70a32a576f3f2 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(percpu_free_rwsem);
static bool __percpu_down_read_trylock(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
{
- __this_cpu_inc(*sem->read_count);
+ this_cpu_inc(*sem->read_count);
/*
* Due to having preemption disabled the decrement happens on
@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ static bool __percpu_down_read_trylock(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
if (likely(!atomic_read_acquire(&sem->block)))
return true;
- __this_cpu_dec(*sem->read_count);
+ this_cpu_dec(*sem->read_count);
/* Prod writer to re-evaluate readers_active_check() */
rcuwait_wake_up(&sem->writer);
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists