[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YvzjeEHYX9d5dhAt@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2022 14:47:52 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/14] locking/percpu-rwsem: Add
percpu_is_write_locked() and percpu_is_read_locked()
On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 05:05:10PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> +bool percpu_is_read_locked(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
> +{
> + return per_cpu_sum(*sem->read_count) != 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(percpu_is_read_locked);
I don't think this is correct; read_count can have spurious increments.
If we look at __percpu_down_read_trylock(), it does roughly something
like this:
this_cpu_inc(*sem->read_count);
smp_mb();
if (!sem->block)
return true;
this_cpu_dec(*sem->read_count);
return false;
So percpu_is_read_locked() needs to ensure the read_count is non-zero
*and* that block is not set.
That said; I really dislike the whole _is_locked family with a passion.
Let me try and figure out what you need this for.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists