[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YXKC9qh+evVmUuLI@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 10:23:02 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@...gle.com>,
Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
Christoph Müllner <christophm30@...il.com>,
Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking: Generic ticket lock
Hi Peter,
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 03:05:15PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> +static __always_inline void ticket_lock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
> +{
> + u32 val = atomic_fetch_add_acquire(ONE_TICKET, lock);
I wonder, should these atomics be arch_atomic_*(), in case an arch_ or raw_
lock is used in noinstr code? The plain atomic_*() forms can have explicit
inline instrumentation.
I haven't seen any issues with qspinlock so far, and that also uses the
(instrumented) atomics, so maybe that's not actually a problem, but I'm not
sure what we intend here w.r.t. instrumentability.
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists