Please do not apply this to mainline directly, instead please re-run the
coccinelle script shown below and apply its output.
For several reasons, it is desirable to use {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() in
preference to ACCESS_ONCE(), and new code is expected to use one of the
former. So far, there's been no reason to change most existing uses of
ACCESS_ONCE(), as these aren't harmful, and changing them results in
churn.
However, for some features, the read/write distinction is critical to
correct operation. To distinguish these cases, separate read/write
accessors must be used. This patch migrates (most) remaining
ACCESS_ONCE() instances to {READ,WRITE}_ONCE(), using the following
coccinelle script:
----
// Convert trivial ACCESS_ONCE() uses to equivalent READ_ONCE() and
// WRITE_ONCE()
// $ make coccicheck COCCI=/home/mark/once.cocci SPFLAGS="--include-headers" MODE=patch
virtual patch
@ depends on patch @
expression E1, E2;
@@
- ACCESS_ONCE(E1) = E2
+ WRITE_ONCE(E1, E2)
@ depends on patch @
expression E;
@@
- ACCESS_ONCE(E)
+ READ_ONCE(E)
----
Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mpe@ellerman.id.au
Cc: shuah@kernel.org
Cc: snitzer@redhat.com
Cc: thor.thayer@linux.intel.com
Cc: tj@kernel.org
Cc: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Cc: will.deacon@arm.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1508792849-3115-19-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
For several reasons, it is desirable to use {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() in
preference to ACCESS_ONCE(), and new code is expected to use one of the
former. So far, there's been no reason to change most existing uses of
ACCESS_ONCE(), as these aren't currently harmful.
However, for some features it is necessary to instrument reads and
writes separately, which is not possible with ACCESS_ONCE(). This
distinction is critical to correct operation.
The bulk of the kernel code can be transformed via Coccinelle to use
{READ,WRITE}_ONCE(), though this only modifies users of ACCESS_ONCE(),
and not the implementation itself. As such, it has the potential to
break homebrew ACCESS_ONCE() macros seen in some user code in the kernel
tree (e.g. the virtio code, as fixed in commit ea9156fb3b).
To avoid fragility if/when that transformation occurs, this patch
reworks the definitions of {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() in the rcutorture formal
tests, and removes the unused ACCESS_ONCE() helper. There should be no
functional change as a result of this patch.
Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mpe@ellerman.id.au
Cc: shuah@kernel.org
Cc: snitzer@redhat.com
Cc: thor.thayer@linux.intel.com
Cc: tj@kernel.org
Cc: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Cc: will.deacon@arm.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1508792849-3115-13-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
For several reasons, it is desirable to use {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() in
preference to ACCESS_ONCE(), and new code is expected to use one of the
former. So far, there's been no reason to change most existing uses of
ACCESS_ONCE(), as these aren't currently harmful.
However, for some features it is necessary to instrument reads and
writes separately, which is not possible with ACCESS_ONCE(). This
distinction is critical to correct operation.
The bulk of the kernel code can be transformed via Coccinelle to use
{READ,WRITE}_ONCE(), though this only modifies users of ACCESS_ONCE(),
and not the implementation itself. As such, it has the potential to
break homebrew ACCESS_ONCE() macros seen in some user code in the kernel
tree (e.g. the virtio code, as fixed in commit ea9156fb3b).
To avoid fragility if/when that transformation occurs, and to align with
the preferred usage of {READ,WRITE}_ONCE(), this patch updates the DSCR
selftest code to use READ_ONCE() rather than ACCESS_ONCE(). There should
be no functional change as a result of this patch.
Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Cc: snitzer@redhat.com
Cc: thor.thayer@linux.intel.com
Cc: tj@kernel.org
Cc: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Cc: will.deacon@arm.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1508792849-3115-11-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
For several reasons, it is desirable to use {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() in
preference to ACCESS_ONCE(), and new code is expected to use one of the
former. So far, there's been no reason to change most existing uses of
ACCESS_ONCE(), as these aren't currently harmful.
However, for some features it is necessary to instrument reads and
writes separately, which is not possible with ACCESS_ONCE(). This
distinction is critical to correct operation.
The bulk of the kernel code can be transformed via Coccinelle to use
{READ,WRITE}_ONCE(), though this only modifies users of ACCESS_ONCE(),
and not the implementation itself. As such, it has the potential to
break homebrew ACCESS_ONCE() macros seen in some user code in the kernel
tree (e.g. the virtio code, as fixed in commit ea9156fb3b).
To avoid fragility if/when that transformation occurs, and to align with
the preferred usage of {READ,WRITE}_ONCE(), this patch updates the MPSSD
sample code to use READ_ONCE() rather than ACCESS_ONCE(). There should
be no functional change as a result of this patch.
Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mpe@ellerman.id.au
Cc: snitzer@redhat.com
Cc: thor.thayer@linux.intel.com
Cc: tj@kernel.org
Cc: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Cc: will.deacon@arm.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1508792849-3115-10-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
For several reasons, it is desirable to use {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() in
preference to ACCESS_ONCE(), and new code is expected to use one of the
former. So far, there's been no reason to change most existing uses of
ACCESS_ONCE(), as these aren't currently harmful.
However, for some features it is necessary to instrument reads and
writes separately, which is not possible with ACCESS_ONCE(). This
distinction is critical to correct operation.
It's possible to transform the bulk of kernel code using the Coccinelle
script below. However, this doesn't pick up some uses, including those
in dm-integrity.c. As a preparatory step, this patch converts the driver
to use {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() consistently.
At the same time, this patch adds the missing include of
<linux/compiler.h> necessary for the {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() definitions.
----
virtual patch
@ depends on patch @
expression E1, E2;
@@
- ACCESS_ONCE(E1) = E2
+ WRITE_ONCE(E1, E2)
@ depends on patch @
expression E;
@@
- ACCESS_ONCE(E)
+ READ_ONCE(E)
----
Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mpe@ellerman.id.au
Cc: shuah@kernel.org
Cc: thor.thayer@linux.intel.com
Cc: tj@kernel.org
Cc: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Cc: will.deacon@arm.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1508792849-3115-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
When a prospective writer takes the qrwlock locking slowpath due to the
lock being held, it attempts to cmpxchg the wmode field from 0 to
_QW_WAITING so that concurrent lockers also take the slowpath and queue
on the spinlock accordingly, allowing the lockers to drain.
Unfortunately, this isn't fair, because a fastpath writer that comes in
after the lock is made available but before the _QW_WAITING flag is set
can effectively jump the queue. If there is a steady stream of prospective
writers, then the waiter will be held off indefinitely.
This patch restores fairness by separating _QW_WAITING and _QW_LOCKED
into two distinct fields: _QW_LOCKED continues to occupy the bottom byte
of the lockword so that it can be cleared unconditionally when unlocking,
but _QW_WAITING now occupies what used to be the bottom bit of the reader
count. This then forces the slow-path for concurrent lockers.
Tested-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>
Tested-by: Adam Wallis <awallis@codeaurora.org>
Tested-by: Jan Glauber <jglauber@cavium.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeremy.Linton@arm.com
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1507810851-306-6-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
lockless_dereference() is a nice idea, but it gained little traction in
kernel code since its introduction three years ago. This is partly
because it's a pain to type, but also because using READ_ONCE() instead
has worked correctly on all architectures apart from Alpha, which is a
fully supported but somewhat niche architecture these days.
Now that READ_ONCE() has been upgraded to contain an implicit
smp_read_barrier_depends() and the few callers of lockless_dereference()
have been converted, we can remove lockless_dereference() altogether.
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1508840570-22169-5-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Mark Rutland
Paul E. McKenney
Will Deacon