lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 1/2] introduce test_bit_acquire and use it in wait_on_bit


On Mon, 1 Aug 2022, Will Deacon wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 06:42:15AM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>
> > Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h 2022-08-01 12:27:43.000000000 +0200
> > +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h 2022-08-01 12:27:43.000000000 +0200
> > @@ -203,8 +203,10 @@ arch_test_and_change_bit(long nr, volati
> >
> > static __always_inline bool constant_test_bit(long nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
> > {
> > - return ((1UL << (nr & (BITS_PER_LONG-1))) &
> > + bool r = ((1UL << (nr & (BITS_PER_LONG-1))) &
> > (addr[nr >> _BITOPS_LONG_SHIFT])) != 0;
> > + barrier();
> > + return r;
>
> Hmm, I find it a bit weird to have a barrier() here given that 'addr' is
> volatile and we don't need a barrier() like this in the definition of
> READ_ONCE(), for example.

gcc doesn't reorder two volatile accesses, but it can reorder non-volatile
accesses around volatile accesses.

The purpose of the compiler barrier is to make sure that the non-volatile
accesses that follow test_bit are not reordered by the compiler before the
volatile access to addr.

> > Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/wait_bit.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/wait_bit.h 2022-08-01 12:27:43.000000000 +0200
> > +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/wait_bit.h 2022-08-01 12:27:43.000000000 +0200
> > @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ static inline int
> > wait_on_bit(unsigned long *word, int bit, unsigned mode)
> > {
> > might_sleep();
> > - if (!test_bit(bit, word))
> > + if (!test_bit_acquire(bit, word))
> > return 0;
> > return out_of_line_wait_on_bit(word, bit,
> > bit_wait,
>
> Yet another approach here would be to leave test_bit as-is and add a call to
> smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() since that exists already -- I don't have
> strong opinions about it, but it saves you having to add another stub to
> x86.

It would be the same as my previous patch with smp_rmb() that Linus didn't
like. But I think smp_rmb (or smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep) would be
correct here.

> Will

Mikulas

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-08-01 18:14    [W:0.147 / U:0.988 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site