From 33ac279677dcc2441cb93d8cb9cf7a74df62814d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 13:17:12 +0200 Subject: locking/barriers: Introduce smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() Introduce smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep(), this construct is not uncommon, but the lack of this barrier is. Use it to better express smp_rmb() uses in WRITE_ONCE(), the IPC semaphore code and the qspinlock code. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Andrew Morton Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Paul E. McKenney Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- ipc/sem.c | 14 ++------------ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) (limited to 'ipc') diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c index b3757ea0694b..84dff3df11a4 100644 --- a/ipc/sem.c +++ b/ipc/sem.c @@ -259,16 +259,6 @@ static void sem_rcu_free(struct rcu_head *head) ipc_rcu_free(head); } -/* - * spin_unlock_wait() and !spin_is_locked() are not memory barriers, they - * are only control barriers. - * The code must pair with spin_unlock(&sem->lock) or - * spin_unlock(&sem_perm.lock), thus just the control barrier is insufficient. - * - * smp_rmb() is sufficient, as writes cannot pass the control barrier. - */ -#define ipc_smp_acquire__after_spin_is_unlocked() smp_rmb() - /* * Wait until all currently ongoing simple ops have completed. * Caller must own sem_perm.lock. @@ -292,7 +282,7 @@ static void sem_wait_array(struct sem_array *sma) sem = sma->sem_base + i; spin_unlock_wait(&sem->lock); } - ipc_smp_acquire__after_spin_is_unlocked(); + smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep(); } /* @@ -350,7 +340,7 @@ static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_array *sma, struct sembuf *sops, * complex_count++; * spin_unlock(sem_perm.lock); */ - ipc_smp_acquire__after_spin_is_unlocked(); + smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep(); /* * Now repeat the test of complex_count: -- cgit v1.2.3-59-g8ed1b