iv/linux
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

locking/spinlock, sched/core: Clarify requirements for smp_mb__after_spinlock()

Browse Source 
There are 11 interpretations of the requirements described in the header
comment for smp_mb__after_spinlock(): one for each LKMM maintainer, and
one currently encoded in the Cat file. Stick to the latter (until a more
satisfactory solution is available).

This also reworks some snippets related to the barrier to illustrate the
requirements and to link them to the idioms which are relied upon at its
call sites.

Suggested-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: akiyks@gmail.com
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com
Cc: j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Cc: luc.maranget@inria.fr
Cc: npiggin@gmail.com
Cc: parri.andrea@gmail.com
Cc: stern@rowland.harvard.edu
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180716180605.16115-11-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
This commit is contained in:
Andrea Parri
2018-07-16 11:06:02 -07:00
committed by Ingo Molnar
parent 76e079fefc
commit 3d85b27037
2 changed files with 57 additions and 37 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

41
kernel/sched/core.c
View File

@ -1998,21 +1998,20 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags)
* be possible to, falsely, observe p->on_rq == 0 and get stuck
* in smp_cond_load_acquire() below.
*
* sched_ttwu_pending() try_to_wake_up()
* [S] p->on_rq = 1; [L] P->state
* UNLOCK rq->lock -----.
* \
* +--- RMB
* schedule() /
* LOCK rq->lock -----'
* UNLOCK rq->lock
* sched_ttwu_pending() try_to_wake_up()
* STORE p->on_rq = 1 LOAD p->state
* UNLOCK rq->lock
*
* __schedule() (switch to task 'p')
* LOCK rq->lock smp_rmb();
* smp_mb__after_spinlock();
* UNLOCK rq->lock
*
* [task p]
* [S] p->state = UNINTERRUPTIBLE [L] p->on_rq
* STORE p->state = UNINTERRUPTIBLE LOAD p->on_rq
*
* Pairs with the UNLOCK+LOCK on rq->lock from the
* last wakeup of our task and the schedule that got our task
* current.
* Pairs with the LOCK+smp_mb__after_spinlock() on rq->lock in
* __schedule(). See the comment for smp_mb__after_spinlock().
*/
smp_rmb();
if (p->on_rq && ttwu_remote(p, wake_flags))
@ -2026,15 +2025,17 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags)
* One must be running (->on_cpu == 1) in order to remove oneself
* from the runqueue.
*
* [S] ->on_cpu = 1; [L] ->on_rq
* UNLOCK rq->lock
* RMB
* LOCK rq->lock
* [S] ->on_rq = 0; [L] ->on_cpu
* __schedule() (switch to task 'p') try_to_wake_up()
* STORE p->on_cpu = 1 LOAD p->on_rq
* UNLOCK rq->lock
*
* Pairs with the full barrier implied in the UNLOCK+LOCK on rq->lock
* from the consecutive calls to schedule(); the first switching to our
* task, the second putting it to sleep.
* __schedule() (put 'p' to sleep)
* LOCK rq->lock smp_rmb();
* smp_mb__after_spinlock();
* STORE p->on_rq = 0 LOAD p->on_cpu
*
* Pairs with the LOCK+smp_mb__after_spinlock() on rq->lock in
* __schedule(). See the comment for smp_mb__after_spinlock().
*/
smp_rmb();