1. 03 6月, 2016 1 次提交
    • P
      locking/seqcount: Re-fix raw_read_seqcount_latch() · 55eed755
      Peter Zijlstra 提交于
      Commit 50755bc1 ("seqlock: fix raw_read_seqcount_latch()") broke
      raw_read_seqcount_latch().
      
      If you look at the comment that was modified; the thing that changes is
      the seq count, not the latch pointer.
      
       * void latch_modify(struct latch_struct *latch, ...)
       * {
       *	smp_wmb();	<- Ensure that the last data[1] update is visible
       *	latch->seq++;
       *	smp_wmb();	<- Ensure that the seqcount update is visible
       *
       *	modify(latch->data[0], ...);
       *
       *	smp_wmb();	<- Ensure that the data[0] update is visible
       *	latch->seq++;
       *	smp_wmb();	<- Ensure that the seqcount update is visible
       *
       *	modify(latch->data[1], ...);
       * }
       *
       * The query will have a form like:
       *
       * struct entry *latch_query(struct latch_struct *latch, ...)
       * {
       *	struct entry *entry;
       *	unsigned seq, idx;
       *
       *	do {
       *		seq = lockless_dereference(latch->seq);
      
      So here we have:
      
      		seq = READ_ONCE(latch->seq);
      		smp_read_barrier_depends();
      
      Which is exactly what we want; the new code:
      
      		seq = ({ p = READ_ONCE(latch);
      			 smp_read_barrier_depends(); p })->seq;
      
      is just wrong; because it looses the volatile read on seq, which can now
      be torn or worse 'optimized'. And the read_depend barrier is also placed
      wrong, we want it after the load of seq, to match the above data[]
      up-to-date wmb()s.
      
      Such that when we dereference latch->data[] below, we're guaranteed to
      observe the right data.
      
       *
       *		idx = seq & 0x01;
       *		entry = data_query(latch->data[idx], ...);
       *
       *		smp_rmb();
       *	} while (seq != latch->seq);
       *
       *	return entry;
       * }
      
      So yes, not passing a pointer is not pretty, but the code was correct,
      and isn't anymore now.
      
      Change to explicit READ_ONCE()+smp_read_barrier_depends() to avoid
      confusion and allow strict lockless_dereference() checking.
      Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
      Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
      Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
      Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
      Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
      Fixes: 50755bc1 ("seqlock: fix raw_read_seqcount_latch()")
      Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160527111117.GL3192@twins.programming.kicks-ass.netSigned-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
      55eed755
  2. 02 6月, 2016 2 次提交
  3. 01 6月, 2016 23 次提交
  4. 31 5月, 2016 5 次提交
  5. 30 5月, 2016 9 次提交