Re: [PATCH for-4.17 2/2] powerpc: Remove smp_mb() from arch_spin_is_locked()
From: Michael Ellerman
Date: Wed Apr 04 2018 - 06:28:19 EST
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 04:25:37PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> That was tempting, but it leaves unfixed all the other potential
>> callers, both in in-tree and out-of-tree and in code that's yet to be
> So I myself don't care one teeny tiny bit about out of tree code, they
> get to keep their pieces :-)
I agree, but somehow I still end up seeing the pieces from time to time :)
>> Looking today nearly all the callers are debug code, where we probably
>> don't need the barrier but we also don't care about the overhead of the
> Still, code like:
> will unconditionally emit that SYNC. So you might want to be a little
>> Documenting it would definitely be good, but even then I'd be inclined
>> to leave the barrier in our implementation. Matching the documented
>> behaviour is one thing, but the actual real-world behaviour on well
>> tested platforms (ie. x86) is more important.
> By that argument you should switch your spinlock implementation to RCpc
> and include that SYNC in either lock or unlock already ;-)
Unfortunately performance is also a thing :/
I ran the numbers again, switching to sync on unlock is a 30% hit for an
uncontended lock/unlock loop. Which is not going to make me any friends.
> Ideally we'd completely eradicate the *_is_locked() crud from the
> kernel, not sure how feasable that really is, but it's a good goal. At
> that point the whole issue of the barrier becomes moot of course.
Yeah that would be good. The majority of them could/should be using
lockdep_is_held(), though there are still a handful that are actually
using it in non-debug logic.