Re: [patch 00/21] mutex subsystem, -V14

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Thu Jan 05 2006 - 09:40:13 EST



* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Well, if the generic one generates _buggy_ code on ppc64, that means
> that either the generic version is buggy, or one of the atomics that
> it uses is buggily implemented on ppc64.
>
> And I think it's the generic mutex stuff that is buggy. It seems to
> assume memory barriers that aren't valid to assume.

in those headers i'm only using atomic_dec_return(), atomic_cmpxchg()
and atomic_xchg() - all of which imply a barrier. It is
atomic_inc/add/sub/dec() that doesnt default to an implied SMP barrier.

but it's certainly not documented too well. If atomic_dec_return() is
not supposed to imply a barrier, then all the affected architectures
(sparc64, ppc64, mips, alpha, etc.) are overdoing synchronization
currently: they all have barriers for these primitives. [They also have
an implicit barrier for atomic_dec_test() - which is being relied on for
correctness - no kernel code adds an smp_mb__before_atomic_dec() barrier
to around atomic_dec_test().]

the patch below adds the barriers to the asm-generic mutex routines, so
it's not like i'm lazy ;), but i really think this is unnecessary.
Adding this patch would add a second, unnecessary barrier for all the
arches that have barrier-less atomic ops.

it also makes sense: the moment you are interested in the 'previous
value' of the atomic counter in an atomic fashion, you very likely want
to use it for a critical section. (e.g. all the put-the-resource ops
that use atomic_dec_test() rely on this implicit barrier.)

Ingo

Index: linux/include/asm-generic/mutex-dec.h
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/include/asm-generic/mutex-dec.h
+++ linux/include/asm-generic/mutex-dec.h
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
*/
#define __mutex_fastpath_lock(count, fail_fn) \
do { \
+ smp_mb__before_atomic_dec(); \
if (unlikely(atomic_dec_return(count) < 0)) \
fail_fn(count); \
} while (0)
@@ -36,6 +37,7 @@ do { \
static inline int
__mutex_fastpath_lock_retval(atomic_t *count, int (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
{
+ smp_mb__before_atomic_dec();
if (unlikely(atomic_dec_return(count) < 0))
return fail_fn(count);
else
@@ -59,6 +61,8 @@ __mutex_fastpath_lock_retval(atomic_t *c
do { \
if (unlikely(atomic_inc_return(count) <= 0)) \
fail_fn(count); \
+ else \
+ smp_mb__after_atomic_inc(); \
} while (0)

#define __mutex_slowpath_needs_to_unlock() 1
@@ -92,6 +96,7 @@ __mutex_fastpath_trylock(atomic_t *count
* the mutex state would be.
*/
#ifdef __HAVE_ARCH_CMPXCHG
+ smp_mb__before_atomic_dec();
if (likely(atomic_cmpxchg(count, 1, 0)) == 1)
return 1;
return 0;
Index: linux/include/asm-generic/mutex-xchg.h
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/include/asm-generic/mutex-xchg.h
+++ linux/include/asm-generic/mutex-xchg.h
@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
*/
#define __mutex_fastpath_lock(count, fail_fn) \
do { \
+ smp_mb__before_atomic_dec(); \
if (unlikely(atomic_xchg(count, 0) != 1)) \
fail_fn(count); \
} while (0)
@@ -42,6 +43,7 @@ do { \
static inline int
__mutex_fastpath_lock_retval(atomic_t *count, int (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
{
+ smp_mb__before_atomic_dec();
if (unlikely(atomic_xchg(count, 0) != 1))
return fail_fn(count);
else
@@ -64,6 +66,8 @@ __mutex_fastpath_lock_retval(atomic_t *c
do { \
if (unlikely(atomic_xchg(count, 1) != 0)) \
fail_fn(count); \
+ else \
+ smp_mb__after_atomic_inc(); \
} while (0)

#define __mutex_slowpath_needs_to_unlock() 0
@@ -86,7 +90,10 @@ do { \
static inline int
__mutex_fastpath_trylock(atomic_t *count, int (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
{
- int prev = atomic_xchg(count, 0);
+ int prev;
+
+ smp_mb__before_atomic_dec();
+ prev = atomic_xchg(count, 0);

if (unlikely(prev < 0)) {
/*
-
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/