Re: [PATCH V2 11/19] csky: Atomic operations
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: 2018-07-05 17:59:15
Also in:
lkml
On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 01:30:14AM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
+static inline void arch_spin_lock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
+{
+ unsigned int *p = &lock->lock;
+ unsigned int tmp;
+
+ asm volatile (
+ "1: ldex.w %0, (%1) \n"
+ " bnez %0, 1b \n"
+ " movi %0, 1 \n"
+ " stex.w %0, (%1) \n"
+ " bez %0, 1b \n"
+ : "=&r" (tmp)
+ : "r"(p)
+ : "memory");
+ smp_mb();
+}Test-and-set with MB acting as ACQUIRE, ok.
+static inline void arch_spin_unlock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
+{
+ unsigned int *p = &lock->lock;
+ unsigned int tmp;
+
+ smp_mb();
+ asm volatile (
+ "1: ldex.w %0, (%1) \n"
+ " movi %0, 0 \n"
+ " stex.w %0, (%1) \n"
+ " bez %0, 1b \n"
+ : "=&r" (tmp)
+ : "r"(p)
+ : "memory");
+}MB acting for RELEASE, but _why_ are you using a LDEX/STEX to clear the lock word? Would not a normal store work? Also, the fact that you need MB for release implies your LDEX does not in fact imply anything and your xchg/cmpxchg implementation is broken.
+static inline int arch_spin_trylock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
+{
+ unsigned int *p = &lock->lock;
+ unsigned int tmp;
+
+ asm volatile (
+ "1: ldex.w %0, (%1) \n"
+ " bnez %0, 2f \n"
+ " movi %0, 1 \n"
+ " stex.w %0, (%1) \n"
+ " bez %0, 1b \n"
+ " movi %0, 0 \n"
+ "2: \n"
+ : "=&r" (tmp)
+ : "r"(p)
+ : "memory");
+ smp_mb();
+
+ return !tmp;
+}Strictly speaking you can avoid the MB on failure. You only need to provide ACQUIRE semantics on success. That said, I would really suggest you implement a ticket lock instead of a test-and-set lock. They're not really all that complicated and do provide better worst case behaviour.
+/****** read lock/unlock/trylock ******/
Please have a look at using qrwlock -- esp. if you implement a ticket lock, then the rwlock comes for 'free'.