Skip to content

cloud-kernel
cloud-kernel

openanolis / cloud-kernel
1 年多 前同步成功

通知 160
Star 36
Fork 7
cloud-kernel
cloud-kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 15 3月, 2014 2 次提交
  3. 13 3月, 2014 5 次提交
  5. 10 3月, 2014 1 次提交
  7. 04 3月, 2014 3 次提交
  9. 28 2月, 2014 2 次提交
  11. 26 2月, 2014 5 次提交
  13. 08 2月, 2014 2 次提交
    • W
      arm64: asm: remove redundant "cc" clobbers · 95c41896
      由 Will Deacon 提交于 
      cbnz/tbnz don't update the condition flags, so remove the "cc" clobbers
from inline asm blocks that only use these instructions to implement
conditional branches.
Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: NCatalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
      95c41896
    • W
      arm64: atomics: fix use of acquire + release for full barrier semantics · 8e86f0b4
      由 Will Deacon 提交于 
      Linux requires a number of atomic operations to provide full barrier
semantics, that is no memory accesses after the operation can be
observed before any accesses up to and including the operation in
program order.

On arm64, these operations have been incorrectly implemented as follows:

	// A, B, C are independent memory locations

	<Access [A]>

	// atomic_op (B)
1:	ldaxr	x0, [B]		// Exclusive load with acquire
	<op(B)>
	stlxr	w1, x0, [B]	// Exclusive store with release
	cbnz	w1, 1b

	<Access [C]>

The assumption here being that two half barriers are equivalent to a
full barrier, so the only permitted ordering would be A -> B -> C
(where B is the atomic operation involving both a load and a store).

Unfortunately, this is not the case by the letter of the architecture
and, in fact, the accesses to A and C are permitted to pass their
nearest half barrier resulting in orderings such as Bl -> A -> C -> Bs
or Bl -> C -> A -> Bs (where Bl is the load-acquire on B and Bs is the
store-release on B). This is a clear violation of the full barrier
requirement.

The simple way to fix this is to implement the same algorithm as ARMv7
using explicit barriers:

	<Access [A]>

	// atomic_op (B)
	dmb	ish		// Full barrier
1:	ldxr	x0, [B]		// Exclusive load
	<op(B)>
	stxr	w1, x0, [B]	// Exclusive store
	cbnz	w1, 1b
	dmb	ish		// Full barrier

	<Access [C]>

but this has the undesirable effect of introducing *two* full barrier
instructions. A better approach is actually the following, non-intuitive
sequence:

	<Access [A]>

	// atomic_op (B)
1:	ldxr	x0, [B]		// Exclusive load
	<op(B)>
	stlxr	w1, x0, [B]	// Exclusive store with release
	cbnz	w1, 1b
	dmb	ish		// Full barrier

	<Access [C]>

The simple observations here are:

  - The dmb ensures that no subsequent accesses (e.g. the access to C)
    can enter or pass the atomic sequence.

  - The dmb also ensures that no prior accesses (e.g. the access to A)
    can pass the atomic sequence.

  - Therefore, no prior access can pass a subsequent access, or
    vice-versa (i.e. A is strictly ordered before C).

  - The stlxr ensures that no prior access can pass the store component
    of the atomic operation.

The only tricky part remaining is the ordering between the ldxr and the
access to A, since the absence of the first dmb means that we're now
permitting re-ordering between the ldxr and any prior accesses.

From an (arbitrary) observer's point of view, there are two scenarios:

  1. We have observed the ldxr. This means that if we perform a store to
     [B], the ldxr will still return older data. If we can observe the
     ldxr, then we can potentially observe the permitted re-ordering
     with the access to A, which is clearly an issue when compared to
     the dmb variant of the code. Thankfully, the exclusive monitor will
     save us here since it will be cleared as a result of the store and
     the ldxr will retry. Notice that any use of a later memory
     observation to imply observation of the ldxr will also imply
     observation of the access to A, since the stlxr/dmb ensure strict
     ordering.

  2. We have not observed the ldxr. This means we can perform a store
     and influence the later ldxr. However, that doesn't actually tell
     us anything about the access to [A], so we've not lost anything
     here either when compared to the dmb variant.

This patch implements this solution for our barriered atomic operations,
ensuring that we satisfy the full barrier requirements where they are
needed.

Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: NCatalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
      8e86f0b4
  15. 06 2月, 2014 1 次提交
  17. 05 2月, 2014 3 次提交
  19. 31 1月, 2014 2 次提交
  21. 27 1月, 2014 1 次提交
  23. 17 1月, 2014 1 次提交
  25. 12 1月, 2014 1 次提交
    • P
      arch: Introduce smp_load_acquire(), smp_store_release() · 47933ad4
      由 Peter Zijlstra 提交于 
      A number of situations currently require the heavyweight smp_mb(),
even though there is no need to order prior stores against later
loads.  Many architectures have much cheaper ways to handle these
situations, but the Linux kernel currently has no portable way
to make use of them.

This commit therefore supplies smp_load_acquire() and
smp_store_release() to remedy this situation.  The new
smp_load_acquire() primitive orders the specified load against
any subsequent reads or writes, while the new smp_store_release()
primitive orders the specifed store against any prior reads or
writes.  These primitives allow array-based circular FIFOs to be
implemented without an smp_mb(), and also allow a theoretical
hole in rcu_assign_pointer() to be closed at no additional
expense on most architectures.

In addition, the RCU experience transitioning from explicit
smp_read_barrier_depends() and smp_wmb() to rcu_dereference()
and rcu_assign_pointer(), respectively resulted in substantial
improvements in readability.  It therefore seems likely that
replacing other explicit barriers with smp_load_acquire() and
smp_store_release() will provide similar benefits.  It appears
that roughly half of the explicit barriers in core kernel code
might be so replaced.

[Changelog by PaulMck]
Reviewed-by: N"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <michael@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>
Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Victor Kaplansky <VICTORK@il.ibm.com>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20131213150640.908486364@infradead.orgSigned-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
      47933ad4
  27. 08 1月, 2014 5 次提交
  29. 28 12月, 2013 1 次提交
  31. 20 12月, 2013 5 次提交