Remove spin_barrier_irq(). It is pointless.

Add a barrier-appropriate consistency check to spinlock.c, and add
code comments to explain why barrier operations are more relaxed than
lock-acquisition operations.

Signed-off-by: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
This commit is contained in:
Keir Fraser committed 2011-03-26 08:27:41 +00:00
1 parent 138a41150a
commit 1b5efa212f
3 files changed
+40 -13

No files matched your search

+1 -1
View File
@@ -417,7 +417,7 @@ static long __evtchn_close(struct domain *d1, int port1)
if ( v->virq_to_evtchn[chn1->u.virq] != port1 )
continue;
v->virq_to_evtchn[chn1->u.virq] = 0;
spin_barrier_irq(&v->virq_lock);
spin_barrier(&v->virq_lock);
}
break;
+39 -10
View File
@@ -23,6 +23,24 @@ static void check_lock(struct lock_debug *debug)
/* A few places take liberties with this. */
/* BUG_ON(in_irq() && !irq_safe); */
/*
* We partition locks into IRQ-safe (always held with IRQs disabled) and
* IRQ-unsafe (always held with IRQs enabled) types. The convention for
* every lock must be consistently observed else we can deadlock in
* IRQ-context rendezvous functions (a rendezvous which gets every CPU
* into IRQ context before any CPU is released from the rendezvous).
*
* If we can mix IRQ-disabled and IRQ-enabled callers, the following can
* happen:
* * Lock is held by CPU A, with IRQs enabled
* * CPU B is spinning on same lock, with IRQs disabled
* * Rendezvous starts -- CPU A takes interrupt and enters rendezbous spin
* * DEADLOCK -- CPU B will never enter rendezvous, CPU A will never exit
* the rendezvous, and will hence never release the lock.
*
* To guard against this subtle bug we latch the IRQ safety of every
* spinlock in the system, on first use.
*/
if ( unlikely(debug->irq_safe != irq_safe) )
{
int seen = cmpxchg(&debug->irq_safe, -1, irq_safe);
@@ -30,6 +48,25 @@ static void check_lock(struct lock_debug *debug)
}
}
static void check_barrier(struct lock_debug *debug)
{
if ( unlikely(atomic_read(&spin_debug) <= 0) )
return;
/*
* For a barrier, we have a relaxed IRQ-safety-consistency check.
*
* It is always safe to spin at the barrier with IRQs enabled -- that does
* not prevent us from entering an IRQ-context rendezvous, and nor are
* we preventing anyone else from doing so (since we do not actually
* acquire the lock during a barrier operation).
*
* However, if we spin on an IRQ-unsafe lock with IRQs disabled then that
* is clearly wrong, for the same reason outlined in check_lock() above.
*/
BUG_ON(!local_irq_is_enabled() && (debug->irq_safe == 0));
}
void spin_debug_enable(void)
{
atomic_inc(&spin_debug);
@@ -171,7 +208,7 @@ void _spin_barrier(spinlock_t *lock)
s_time_t block = NOW();
u64 loop = 0;
check_lock(&lock->debug);
check_barrier(&lock->debug);
do { mb(); loop++;} while ( _raw_spin_is_locked(&lock->raw) );
if (loop > 1)
{
@@ -179,20 +216,12 @@ void _spin_barrier(spinlock_t *lock)
lock->profile.block_cnt++;
}
#else
check_lock(&lock->debug);
check_barrier(&lock->debug);
do { mb(); } while ( _raw_spin_is_locked(&lock->raw) );
#endif
mb();
}
void _spin_barrier_irq(spinlock_t *lock)
{
unsigned long flags;
local_irq_save(flags);
_spin_barrier(lock);
local_irq_restore(flags);
}
int _spin_trylock_recursive(spinlock_t *lock)
{
int cpu = smp_processor_id();
-2
View File
@@ -144,7 +144,6 @@ void _spin_unlock_irqrestore(spinlock_t *lock, unsigned long flags);
int _spin_is_locked(spinlock_t *lock);
int _spin_trylock(spinlock_t *lock);
void _spin_barrier(spinlock_t *lock);
void _spin_barrier_irq(spinlock_t *lock);
int _spin_trylock_recursive(spinlock_t *lock);
void _spin_lock_recursive(spinlock_t *lock);
@@ -191,7 +190,6 @@ int _rw_is_write_locked(rwlock_t *lock);
/* Ensure a lock is quiescent between two critical operations. */
#define spin_barrier(l) _spin_barrier(l)
#define spin_barrier_irq(l) _spin_barrier_irq(l)
/*
* spin_[un]lock_recursive(): Use these forms when the lock can (safely!) be
Reference in new issue
Block a user
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.