Skip to contentSkip to conversation

mutex:SMP:bf561:Run smp memory barrier after take atomic lock in mutex_fastpath APIs.

PATCH In review Sonic Zhang 3 participants 4 messages Oct 26, 2011 Generic include/asm header files

lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 mutex:SMP:bf561:Run smp memory barrier after take atomic lock in mutex_fastpath APIs.

From: Sonic Zhang <[email protected]>

In blackfin SMP architecture, no cache coherence among cores is supppored by hardware. Data protected by spin lock or atomic operation are kept consistent by invalidating entired local cache in spin lock APIs and smp memory barrier APIs on the other cores.

In mutex fast path APIs, spin lock may not be called if the lock can be taken by atomic operation. So, smp memory barrier should be invoked to keep cache consistent for SMP architecture without hardware cache coherency support.

---
 include/asm-generic/mutex-dec.h  |   10 +++++++++-
 include/asm-generic/mutex-xchg.h |    8 ++++++++
 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
include/asm-generic/mutex-dec.h +9 -1
index f104af7..61f722f 100644
@@ -22,6 +22,8 @@ __mutex_fastpath_lock(atomic_t *count, void (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
 {
 	if (unlikely(atomic_dec_return(count) < 0))
 		fail_fn(count);
+	else
+		smp_rmb();
 }
 
 /**
@@ -39,6 +41,8 @@ __mutex_fastpath_lock_retval(atomic_t *count, int (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
 {
 	if (unlikely(atomic_dec_return(count) < 0))
 		return fail_fn(count);
+	else
+		smp_rmb();
 	return 0;
 }
 
@@ -60,6 +64,8 @@ __mutex_fastpath_unlock(atomic_t *count, void (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
 {
 	if (unlikely(atomic_inc_return(count) <= 0))
 		fail_fn(count);
+	else
+		smp_wmb();
 }
 
 #define __mutex_slowpath_needs_to_unlock()		1
@@ -82,8 +88,10 @@ __mutex_fastpath_unlock(atomic_t *count, void (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
 static inline int
 __mutex_fastpath_trylock(atomic_t *count, int (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
 {
-	if (likely(atomic_cmpxchg(count, 1, 0) == 1))
+	if (likely(atomic_cmpxchg(count, 1, 0) == 1)) {
+		smp_rmb();
 		return 1;
+	}
 	return 0;
 }
 
include/asm-generic/mutex-xchg.h +8 -0
index 580a6d3..6d6bde8 100644
@@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ __mutex_fastpath_lock(atomic_t *count, void (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
 {
 	if (unlikely(atomic_xchg(count, 0) != 1))
 		fail_fn(count);
+	else
+		smp_rmb();
 }
 
 /**
@@ -44,6 +46,8 @@ __mutex_fastpath_lock_retval(atomic_t *count, int (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
 {
 	if (unlikely(atomic_xchg(count, 0) != 1))
 		return fail_fn(count);
+	else
+		smp_rmb();
 	return 0;
 }
 
@@ -64,6 +68,8 @@ __mutex_fastpath_unlock(atomic_t *count, void (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
 {
 	if (unlikely(atomic_xchg(count, 1) != 0))
 		fail_fn(count);
+	else
+		smp_wmb();
 }
 
 #define __mutex_slowpath_needs_to_unlock()		0
@@ -104,6 +110,8 @@ __mutex_fastpath_trylock(atomic_t *count, int (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
 		if (prev < 0)
 			prev = 0;
 	}
+	if (prev)
+		smp_rmb();
 
 	return prev;
 }
Signature · 1 line
1.7.0.4
#2 lore raw

Hi Mike,

Our SMP atomic implementation doesn't include memory barrier. Is it a better way to add barrier there?

Thanks

Sonic

Quoted 19 lines

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Frysinger
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 3:54 PM
To: Sonic Zhang
Cc: [email protected]; Ingo Molnar; LKML
Subject: Re: [uclinux-dist-devel] [PATCH] mutex:SMP:bf561:Run smp memory barrier after take atomic lock in mutex_fastpath APIs.

unfortunately, this is incorrect. please see the thread:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/5/29/233
-mike
_______________________________________________
Uclinux-dist-devel mailing list [email protected]
https://blackfin.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dist-devel

#3 lore raw
Quoted 1 line · Sonic

Our SMP atomic implementation doesn't include memory barrier. Is it a better way to add barrier there?

i'll have to re-read the thread myself, but i thought the conclusions of that thread were implemented in the Blackfin tree now

so if the conclusion was we needed barriers in the atomic funcs, and we don't have them now, then that probably is the way to go instead ... but i'll have to review things in depth later
-mike