[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84A469CA-3497-42A3-A3BB-42B7CB1195DC@nvidia.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 10:08:00 -0500
From: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...nel.org>,
"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Clark Williams <clrkwllms@...nel.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/3] locking: add rwsem_is_write_locked(), update
non-lockdep asserts
On 16 Jan 2026, at 8:36, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> As part of adding some additional lock asserts in mm, we wish to be able to
> determine if a read/write semaphore is write-locked, so add
> rwsem_is_write_locked() to do the write-lock equivalent of
> rwsem_is_locked().
>
> While we're here, update rwsem_assert_[write_]held_nolockdep() to utilise
> the rwsem_is_[write_]locked() helpers directly to reduce code duplication,
> and also update rwsem_is_locked() to take a const rwsem and return a
> boolean.
>
> This patch also updates the CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT helpers to do the same thing
> there.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
> ---
> include/linux/rwsem.h | 20 +++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/rwsem.h b/include/linux/rwsem.h
> index f1aaf676a874..b25b7944ad99 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rwsem.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rwsem.h
> @@ -70,19 +70,24 @@ struct rw_semaphore {
> #define RWSEM_WRITER_LOCKED (1UL << 0)
> #define __RWSEM_COUNT_INIT(name) .count = ATOMIC_LONG_INIT(RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE)
>
> -static inline int rwsem_is_locked(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> +static inline bool rwsem_is_locked(const struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> {
> return atomic_long_read(&sem->count) != RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE;
> }
>
> +static inline bool rwsem_is_write_locked(const struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> +{
> + return atomic_long_read(&sem->count) & RWSEM_WRITER_LOCKED;
> +}
> +
> static inline void rwsem_assert_held_nolockdep(const struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> {
> - WARN_ON(atomic_long_read(&sem->count) == RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE);
> + WARN_ON(!rwsem_is_locked(sem));
> }
>
> static inline void rwsem_assert_held_write_nolockdep(const struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> {
> - WARN_ON(!(atomic_long_read(&sem->count) & RWSEM_WRITER_LOCKED));
> + WARN_ON(!rwsem_is_write_locked(sem));
> }
>
> /* Common initializer macros and functions */
> @@ -174,11 +179,16 @@ do { \
> __init_rwsem((sem), #sem, &__key); \
> } while (0)
>
> -static __always_inline int rwsem_is_locked(const struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> +static __always_inline bool rwsem_is_locked(const struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> {
> return rw_base_is_locked(&sem->rwbase);
> }
>
> +static __always_inline bool rwsem_is_write_locked(const struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> +{
> + return rw_base_is_write_locked(&sem->rwbase);
> +}
> +
> static __always_inline void rwsem_assert_held_nolockdep(const struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> {
> WARN_ON(!rwsem_is_locked(sem));
> @@ -186,7 +196,7 @@ static __always_inline void rwsem_assert_held_nolockdep(const struct rw_semaphor
>
> static __always_inline void rwsem_assert_held_write_nolockdep(const struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> {
> - WARN_ON(!rw_base_is_write_locked(&sem->rwbase));
> + WARN_ON(!rwsem_is_write_locked(sem));
I thought it was wrong since rwsem_is_write_locked() at the top reads ->count
instead of ->rwbase until I see there is another rwsem_is_write_locked() above.
> }
>
> static __always_inline int rwsem_is_contended(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> --
Reviewed-by: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
--
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists