Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlockimplementation

[Waiman Long]

On 08/27/2013 08:09 AM, Alexander Fyodorov wrote:
> > I also thought that the x86 spinlock unlock path was an atomic add. It
> > just comes to my realization recently that this is not the case. The
> > UNLOCK_LOCK_PREFIX will be mapped to "" except for some old 32-bit x86
> > processors.
> Hmm, I didn't know that. Looking through Google found these rules for x86 memory ordering:
>    * Loads are not reordered with other loads.
>    * Stores are not reordered with other stores.
>    * Stores are not reordered with older loads.
> So x86 memory model is rather strict and memory barrier is really not needed in the unlock path - xadd is a store and thus behaves like a memory barrier, and since only lock's owner modifies "ticket.head" the "add" instruction need not be atomic.
>
> But this is true only for x86, other architectures have more relaxed memory ordering. Maybe we should allow arch code to redefine queue_spin_unlock()? And define a version without smp_mb() for x86?

What I have been thinking is to set a flag in an architecture specific 
header file to tell if the architecture need a memory barrier. The 
generic code will then either do a smp_mb() or barrier() depending on 
the presence or absence of the flag. I would prefer to do more in the 
generic code, if possible.

Regards,
Longman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/