Re: [PATCH 6/7] microblaze: Implement architecture spinlock

[Michal Simek]

On 12. 02. 20 16:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 04:42:28PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>> From: Stefan Asserhall <stefan.asserhall@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Using exclusive loads/stores to implement spinlocks which can be used on
>> SMP systems.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Asserhall <stefan.asserhall@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>>  arch/microblaze/include/asm/spinlock.h       | 240 +++++++++++++++++++
>>  arch/microblaze/include/asm/spinlock_types.h |  25 ++
>>  2 files changed, 265 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 arch/microblaze/include/asm/spinlock.h
>>  create mode 100644 arch/microblaze/include/asm/spinlock_types.h
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/microblaze/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/microblaze/include/asm/spinlock.h
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..0199ea9f7f0f
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/arch/microblaze/include/asm/spinlock.h
>> @@ -0,0 +1,240 @@
>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
>> +/*
>> + * Copyright (C) 2013-2020 Xilinx, Inc.
>> + */
>> +
>> +#ifndef _ASM_MICROBLAZE_SPINLOCK_H
>> +#define _ASM_MICROBLAZE_SPINLOCK_H
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Unlocked value: 0
>> + * Locked value: 1
>> + */
>> +#define arch_spin_is_locked(x)	(READ_ONCE((x)->lock) != 0)
>> +
>> +static inline void arch_spin_lock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
>> +{
>> +	unsigned long tmp;
>> +
>> +	__asm__ __volatile__ (
>> +		/* load conditional address in %1 to %0 */
>> +		"1:	lwx	 %0, %1, r0;\n"
>> +		/* not zero? try again */
>> +		"	bnei	%0, 1b;\n"
>> +		/* increment lock by 1 */
>> +		"	addi	%0, r0, 1;\n"
>> +		/* attempt store */
>> +		"	swx	%0, %1, r0;\n"
>> +		/* checking msr carry flag */
>> +		"	addic	%0, r0, 0;\n"
>> +		/* store failed (MSR[C] set)? try again */
>> +		"	bnei	%0, 1b;\n"
>> +		/* Outputs: temp variable for load result */
>> +		: "=&r" (tmp)
>> +		/* Inputs: lock address */
>> +		: "r" (&lock->lock)
>> +		: "cc", "memory"
>> +	);
>> +}
> 
> That's a test-and-set spinlock if I read it correctly. Why? that's the
> worst possible spinlock implementation possible.

This was written by Stefan and it is aligned with recommended
implementation. What other options do we have?

Thanks,
Michal