From 01352fb81658cbf78c55844de8e3d1d606bbf3f8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 13:59:08 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] locking: Add an smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() for UNLOCK+BLOCK barrier The Linux kernel has traditionally required that an UNLOCK+LOCK pair act as a full memory barrier when either (1) that UNLOCK+LOCK pair was executed by the same CPU or task, or (2) the same lock variable was used for the UNLOCK and LOCK. It now seems likely that very few places in the kernel rely on this full-memory-barrier semantic, and with the advent of queued locks, providing this semantic either requires complex reasoning, or for some architectures, added overhead. This commit therefore adds a smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), which may be placed after a LOCK primitive to restore the full-memory-barrier semantic. All definitions are currently no-ops, but will be upgraded for some architectures when queued locks arrive. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney Reviewed-by: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andrew Morton Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1386799151-2219-5-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- include/linux/spinlock.h | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) diff --git a/include/linux/spinlock.h b/include/linux/spinlock.h index 75f34949d9ab..3f2867ff0ced 100644 --- a/include/linux/spinlock.h +++ b/include/linux/spinlock.h @@ -130,6 +130,16 @@ do { \ #define smp_mb__before_spinlock() smp_wmb() #endif +/* + * Place this after a lock-acquisition primitive to guarantee that + * an UNLOCK+LOCK pair act as a full barrier. This guarantee applies + * if the UNLOCK and LOCK are executed by the same CPU or if the + * UNLOCK and LOCK operate on the same lock variable. + */ +#ifndef smp_mb__after_unlock_lock +#define smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() do { } while (0) +#endif + /** * raw_spin_unlock_wait - wait until the spinlock gets unlocked * @lock: the spinlock in question.