kernel.git/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h, branch linux-3.12.y

powerpc: Add smp_mb() to arch_spin_is_locked()

2014-10-31T14:11:33Z

commit 51d7d5205d3389a32859f9939f1093f267409929 upstream. The kernel defines the function spin_is_locked(), which can be used to check if a spinlock is currently locked. Using spin_is_locked() on a lock you don't hold is obviously racy. That is, even though you may observe that the lock is unlocked, it may become locked at any time. There is (at least) one exception to that, which is if two locks are used as a pair, and the holder of each checks the status of the other before doing any update. Assuming *A and *B are two locks, and *COUNTER is a shared non-atomic value: The first CPU does: spin_lock(*A) if spin_is_locked(*B) # nothing else smp_mb() LOAD r = *COUNTER r++ STORE *COUNTER = r spin_unlock(*A) And the second CPU does: spin_lock(*B) if spin_is_locked(*A) # nothing else smp_mb() LOAD r = *COUNTER r++ STORE *COUNTER = r spin_unlock(*B) Although this is a strange locking construct, it should work. It seems to be understood, but not documented, that spin_is_locked() is not a memory barrier, so in the examples above and below the caller inserts its own memory barrier before acting on the result of spin_is_locked(). For now we assume spin_is_locked() is implemented as below, and we break it out in our examples: bool spin_is_locked(*LOCK) { LOAD l = *LOCK return l.locked } Our intuition is that there should be no problem even if the two code sequences run simultaneously such as: CPU 0 CPU 1 ================================================== spin_lock(*A) spin_lock(*B) LOAD b = *B LOAD a = *A if b.locked # true if a.locked # true # nothing # nothing spin_unlock(*A) spin_unlock(*B) If one CPU gets the lock before the other then it will do the update and the other CPU will back off: CPU 0 CPU 1 ================================================== spin_lock(*A) LOAD b = *B spin_lock(*B) if b.locked # false LOAD a = *A else if a.locked # true smp_mb() # nothing LOAD r1 = *COUNTER spin_unlock(*B) r1++ STORE *COUNTER = r1 spin_unlock(*A) However in reality spin_lock() itself is not indivisible. On powerpc we implement it as a load-and-reserve and store-conditional. Ignoring the retry logic for the lost reservation case, it boils down to: spin_lock(*LOCK) { LOAD l = *LOCK l.locked = true STORE *LOCK = l ACQUIRE_BARRIER } The ACQUIRE_BARRIER is required to give spin_lock() ACQUIRE semantics as defined in memory-barriers.txt: This acts as a one-way permeable barrier. It guarantees that all memory operations after the ACQUIRE operation will appear to happen after the ACQUIRE operation with respect to the other components of the system. On modern powerpc systems we use lwsync for ACQUIRE_BARRIER. lwsync is also know as "lightweight sync", or "sync 1". As described in Power ISA v2.07 section B.2.1.1, in this scenario the lwsync is not the barrier itself. It instead causes the LOAD of *LOCK to act as the barrier, preventing any loads or stores in the locked region from occurring prior to the load of *LOCK. Whether this behaviour is in accordance with the definition of ACQUIRE semantics in memory-barriers.txt is open to discussion, we may switch to a different barrier in future. What this means in practice is that the following can occur: CPU 0 CPU 1 ================================================== LOAD a = *A LOAD b = *B a.locked = true b.locked = true LOAD b = *B LOAD a = *A STORE *A = a STORE *B = b if b.locked # false if a.locked # false else else smp_mb() smp_mb() LOAD r1 = *COUNTER LOAD r2 = *COUNTER r1++ r2++ STORE *COUNTER = r1 STORE *COUNTER = r2 # Lost update spin_unlock(*A) spin_unlock(*B) That is, the load of *B can occur prior to the store that makes *A visibly locked. And similarly for CPU 1. The result is both CPUs hold their lock and believe the other lock is unlocked. The easiest fix for this is to add a full memory barrier to the start of spin_is_locked(), so adding to our previous definition would give us: bool spin_is_locked(*LOCK) { smp_mb() LOAD l = *LOCK return l.locked } The new barrier orders the store to the lock we are locking vs the load of the other lock: CPU 0 CPU 1 ================================================== LOAD a = *A LOAD b = *B a.locked = true b.locked = true STORE *A = a STORE *B = b smp_mb() smp_mb() LOAD b = *B LOAD a = *A if b.locked # true if a.locked # true # nothing # nothing spin_unlock(*A) spin_unlock(*B) Although the above example is theoretical, there is code similar to this example in sem_lock() in ipc/sem.c. This commit in addition to the next commit appears to be a fix for crashes we are seeing in that code where we believe this race happens in practice. Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby

powerpc: Make rwlocks endian safe

2013-08-14T05:33:40Z

Our ppc64 spinlocks and rwlocks use a trick where a lock token and the paca index are placed in the lock with a single store. Since we are using two u16s they need adjusting for little endian. Signed-off-by: Anton Blanchard Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt

powerpc: Stop using non-architected shared_proc field in lppaca

2013-08-14T01:50:26Z

Although the shared_proc field in the lppaca works today, it is not architected. A shared processor partition will always have a non zero yield_count so use that instead. Create a wrapper so users don't have to know about the details. In order for older kernels to continue to work on KVM we need to set the shared_proc bit. While here, remove the ugly bitfield. Signed-off-by: Anton Blanchard Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt

powerpc: Avoid debug_smp_processor_id() check in SHARED_PROCESSOR

2013-01-29T00:35:06Z

Use local_paca directly in macro SHARED_PROCESSOR, as all processors have the same value for the field shared_proc, so we don't need care racy here. Reported-by: Paul E. McKenney Signed-off-by: Li Zhong Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt

powerpc: Remove the remaining CONFIG_PPC_ISERIES pieces

2012-03-21T00:16:12Z

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt

powerpc: Rename LWSYNC_ON_SMP to PPC_RELEASE_BARRIER, ISYNC_ON_SMP to PPC_ACQUIRE_BARRIER

2010-02-17T03:03:15Z

For performance reasons we are about to change ISYNC_ON_SMP to sometimes be lwsync. Now that the macro name doesn't make sense, change it and LWSYNC_ON_SMP to better explain what the barriers are doing. Signed-off-by: Anton Blanchard Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt

powerpc: Use lwarx hint in spinlocks

2010-02-17T03:03:14Z

Recent versions of the PowerPC architecture added a hint bit to the larx instructions to differentiate between an atomic operation and a lock operation: > 0 Other programs might attempt to modify the word in storage addressed by EA > even if the subsequent Store Conditional succeeds. > > 1 Other programs will not attempt to modify the word in storage addressed by > EA until the program that has acquired the lock performs a subsequent store > releasing the lock. To avoid a binutils dependency this patch create macros for the extended lwarx format and uses it in the spinlock code. To test this change I used a simple test case that acquires and releases a global pthread mutex: pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex); pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex); On a 32 core POWER6, running 32 test threads we spend almost all our time in the futex spinlock code: 94.37% perf [kernel] [k] ._raw_spin_lock | |--99.95%-- ._raw_spin_lock | | | |--63.29%-- .futex_wake | | | |--36.64%-- .futex_wait_setup Which is a good test for this patch. The results (in lock/unlock operations per second) are: before: 1538203 ops/sec after: 2189219 ops/sec An improvement of 42% A 32 core POWER7 improves even more: before: 1279529 ops/sec after: 2282076 ops/sec An improvement of 78% Signed-off-by: Anton Blanchard Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt

locking: Convert raw_rwlock functions to arch_rwlock

2009-12-14T22:55:32Z

Name space cleanup for rwlock functions. No functional change. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra Acked-by: David S. Miller Acked-by: Ingo Molnar Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org

locking: Convert raw_rwlock to arch_rwlock

2009-12-14T22:55:32Z

Not strictly necessary for -rt as -rt does not have non sleeping rwlocks, but it's odd to not have a consistent naming convention. No functional change. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra Acked-by: David S. Miller Acked-by: Ingo Molnar Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org

locking: Convert __raw_spin* functions to arch_spin*

2009-12-14T22:55:32Z

Name space cleanup. No functional change. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra Acked-by: David S. Miller Acked-by: Ingo Molnar Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org