[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZfLdv5DZvBg0wajJ@libra05>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:21:35 +0900
From: Yewon Choi <woni9911@...il.com>
To: Allison Henderson <allison.henderson@...cle.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
rds-devel@....oracle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: "Dae R. Jeong" <threeearcat@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH net] rds: introduce acquire/release ordering in
acquire/release_in_xmit()
acquire/release_in_xmit() work as bit lock in rds_send_xmit(), so they
are expected to ensure acquire/release memory ordering semantics.
However, test_and_set_bit/clear_bit() don't imply such semantics, on
top of this, following smp_mb__after_atomic() does not guarantee release
ordering (memory barrier actually should be placed before clear_bit()).
Instead, we use clear_bit_unlock/test_and_set_bit_lock() here.
Signed-off-by: Yewon Choi <woni9911@...il.com>
---
net/rds/send.c | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/rds/send.c b/net/rds/send.c
index 5e57a1581dc6..8f38009721b7 100644
--- a/net/rds/send.c
+++ b/net/rds/send.c
@@ -103,13 +103,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rds_send_path_reset);
static int acquire_in_xmit(struct rds_conn_path *cp)
{
- return test_and_set_bit(RDS_IN_XMIT, &cp->cp_flags) == 0;
+ return test_and_set_bit_lock(RDS_IN_XMIT, &cp->cp_flags) == 0;
}
static void release_in_xmit(struct rds_conn_path *cp)
{
- clear_bit(RDS_IN_XMIT, &cp->cp_flags);
- smp_mb__after_atomic();
+ clear_bit_unlock(RDS_IN_XMIT, &cp->cp_flags);
/*
* We don't use wait_on_bit()/wake_up_bit() because our waking is in a
* hot path and finding waiters is very rare. We don't want to walk
--
2.43.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists