Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64/locking: qspinlocks and qrwlocks support

[Yury Norov]

On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 12:47:08PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 05:51:41PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > From: Jan Glauber <jglauber@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Ported from x86_64 with paravirtualization support removed.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Glauber <jglauber@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Note. This patch removes protection from direct inclusion of
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock_types.h. It's done because
> > kernel/locking/qrwlock.c file does it thru the header
> > include/asm-generic/qrwlock_types.h. Until now the only user
> > of qrwlock.c was x86, and there's no such protection too.
> > 
> > I'm not happy to remove the protection, but if it's OK for x86,
> > it should be also OK for arm64. If not, I think we'd fix it
> > for x86, and add the protection there too.
> > 
> > Yury
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <ynorov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

[...]

> > +#define	queued_spin_unlock queued_spin_unlock
> > +/**
> > + * queued_spin_unlock - release a queued spinlock
> > + * @lock : Pointer to queued spinlock structure
> > + *
> > + * A smp_store_release() on the least-significant byte.
> > + */
> > +static inline void queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
> > +{
> > +	smp_store_release((u8 *)lock, 0);
> 
> I think this part will cause endian issues, maybe you want something
> like what we do in queued_write_lock().
> 
> Have you tested this on an BE environment?

No. I think I have to. Thanks for the pointing it.

> 
> Regards,
> Boqun

I think it's just the issue of copying from x86, and there's no any
specific need to cast to u8* type on arm64. So the correct version of
it would be like this, I believe: smp_store_release(&lock->val).

Yury