summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/include/linux/lglock.h
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2012-05-29brlocks/lglocks: turn into functionsAndi Kleen
lglocks and brlocks are currently generated with some complicated macros in lglock.h. But there's no reason to not just use common utility functions and put all the data into a common data structure. Since there are at least two users it makes sense to share this code in a library. This is also easier maintainable than a macro forest. This will also make it later possible to dynamically allocate lglocks and also use them in modules (this would both still need some additional, but now straightforward, code) [akpm@linux-foundation.org: checkpatch fixes] Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
2012-05-29lglock: remove online variants of lockRusty Russell
Optimizing the slow paths adds a lot of complexity. If you need to grab every lock often, you have other problems. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Acked-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
2011-12-22VFS: Fix race between CPU hotplug and lglocksSrivatsa S. Bhat
Currently, the *_global_[un]lock_online() routines are not at all synchronized with CPU hotplug. Soft-lockups detected as a consequence of this race was reported earlier at https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/24/185. (Thanks to Cong Meng for finding out that the root-cause of this issue is the race condition between br_write_[un]lock() and CPU hotplug, which results in the lock states getting messed up). Fixing this race by just adding {get,put}_online_cpus() at appropriate places in *_global_[un]lock_online() is not a good option, because, then suddenly br_write_[un]lock() would become blocking, whereas they have been kept as non-blocking all this time, and we would want to keep them that way. So, overall, we want to ensure 3 things: 1. br_write_lock() and br_write_unlock() must remain as non-blocking. 2. The corresponding lock and unlock of the per-cpu spinlocks must not happen for different sets of CPUs. 3. Either prevent any new CPU online operation in between this lock-unlock, or ensure that the newly onlined CPU does not proceed with its corresponding per-cpu spinlock unlocked. To achieve all this: (a) We introduce a new spinlock that is taken by the *_global_lock_online() routine and released by the *_global_unlock_online() routine. (b) We register a callback for CPU hotplug notifications, and this callback takes the same spinlock as above. (c) We maintain a bitmap which is close to the cpu_online_mask, and once it is initialized in the lock_init() code, all future updates to it are done in the callback, under the above spinlock. (d) The above bitmap is used (instead of cpu_online_mask) while locking and unlocking the per-cpu locks. The callback takes the spinlock upon the CPU_UP_PREPARE event. So, if the br_write_lock-unlock sequence is in progress, the callback keeps spinning, thus preventing the CPU online operation till the lock-unlock sequence is complete. This takes care of requirement (3). The bitmap that we maintain remains unmodified throughout the lock-unlock sequence, since all updates to it are managed by the callback, which takes the same spinlock as the one taken by the lock code and released only by the unlock routine. Combining this with (d) above, satisfies requirement (2). Overall, since we use a spinlock (mentioned in (a)) to prevent CPU hotplug operations from racing with br_write_lock-unlock, requirement (1) is also taken care of. By the way, it is to be noted that a CPU offline operation can actually run in parallel with our lock-unlock sequence, because our callback doesn't react to notifications earlier than CPU_DEAD (in order to maintain our bitmap properly). And this means, since we use our own bitmap (which is stale, on purpose) during the lock-unlock sequence, we could end up unlocking the per-cpu lock of an offline CPU (because we had locked it earlier, when the CPU was online), in order to satisfy requirement (2). But this is harmless, though it looks a bit awkward. Debugged-by: Cong Meng <mc@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
2010-09-09lglock: make lg_lock_global() actually lock globallyJonathan Corbet
lg_lock_global() currently only acquires spinlocks for online CPUs, but it's meant to lock all possible CPUs. Lglock-protected resources may be associated with removed CPUs - and, indeed, that could happen with the per-superblock open files lists. At Nick's suggestion, change for_each_online_cpu() to for_each_possible_cpu() to protect accesses to those resources. Cc: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Acked-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2010-08-18lglock: introduce special lglock and brlock spin locksNick Piggin
lglock: introduce special lglock and brlock spin locks This patch introduces "local-global" locks (lglocks). These can be used to: - Provide fast exclusive access to per-CPU data, with exclusive access to another CPU's data allowed but possibly subject to contention, and to provide very slow exclusive access to all per-CPU data. - Or to provide very fast and scalable read serialisation, and to provide very slow exclusive serialisation of data (not necessarily per-CPU data). Brlocks are also implemented as a short-hand notation for the latter use case. Thanks to Paul for local/global naming convention. Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>