aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/ipc
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorManfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>2014-12-12 16:58:11 -0800
committerLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>2014-12-13 12:42:52 -0800
commit2e094abfd1f29a08a60523b42d4508281b8dee0e (patch)
tree60c10635e14ebc3065b1a40e62517244d929409b /ipc
parenta060bfe032bcb8522b470f8a7a16e225a9fe5dd6 (diff)
ipc/sem.c: change memory barrier in sem_lock() to smp_rmb()
When I fixed bugs in the sem_lock() logic, I was more conservative than necessary. Therefore it is safe to replace the smp_mb() with smp_rmb(). And: With smp_rmb(), semop() syscalls are up to 10% faster. The race we must protect against is: sem->lock is free sma->complex_count = 0 sma->sem_perm.lock held by thread B thread A: A: spin_lock(&sem->lock) B: sma->complex_count++; (now 1) B: spin_unlock(&sma->sem_perm.lock); A: spin_is_locked(&sma->sem_perm.lock); A: XXXXX memory barrier A: if (sma->complex_count == 0) Thread A must read the increased complex_count value, i.e. the read must not be reordered with the read of sem_perm.lock done by spin_is_locked(). Since it's about ordering of reads, smp_rmb() is sufficient. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: update sem_lock() comment, from Davidlohr] Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> Acked-by: Rafael Aquini <aquini@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'ipc')
-rw-r--r--ipc/sem.c13
1 files changed, 10 insertions, 3 deletions
diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
index 53c3310f41c6..6115146563f9 100644
--- a/ipc/sem.c
+++ b/ipc/sem.c
@@ -326,10 +326,17 @@ static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_array *sma, struct sembuf *sops,
/* Then check that the global lock is free */
if (!spin_is_locked(&sma->sem_perm.lock)) {
- /* spin_is_locked() is not a memory barrier */
- smp_mb();
+ /*
+ * The ipc object lock check must be visible on all
+ * cores before rechecking the complex count. Otherwise
+ * we can race with another thread that does:
+ * complex_count++;
+ * spin_unlock(sem_perm.lock);
+ */
+ smp_rmb();
- /* Now repeat the test of complex_count:
+ /*
+ * Now repeat the test of complex_count:
* It can't change anymore until we drop sem->lock.
* Thus: if is now 0, then it will stay 0.
*/

Privacy Policy