summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/kernel
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorDavidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>2015-02-22 19:31:41 -0800
committerIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>2015-02-24 08:44:16 +0100
commit4d3199e4ca8e6670b54dc5ee070ffd54385988e9 (patch)
tree5529bcb16c3217c02416e0d17d7c28f277c63581 /kernel
parent2ae79026818e7d49fead82b79b1a543e3b9c8a23 (diff)
locking: Remove ACCESS_ONCE() usage
With the new standardized functions, we can replace all ACCESS_ONCE() calls across relevant locking - this includes lockref and seqlock while at it. ACCESS_ONCE() does not work reliably on non-scalar types. For example gcc 4.6 and 4.7 might remove the volatile tag for such accesses during the SRA (scalar replacement of aggregates) step: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58145 Update the new calls regardless of if it is a scalar type, this is cleaner than having three alternatives. Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1424662301.6539.18.camel@stgolabs.net Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'kernel')
-rw-r--r--kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h6
-rw-r--r--kernel/locking/mutex.c8
-rw-r--r--kernel/locking/osq_lock.c14
-rw-r--r--kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c10
4 files changed, 19 insertions, 19 deletions
diff --git a/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h b/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h
index d1fe2ba5bac9..75e114bdf3f2 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h
+++ b/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h
@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
*/
return;
}
- ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node;
+ WRITE_ONCE(prev->next, node);
/* Wait until the lock holder passes the lock down. */
arch_mcs_spin_lock_contended(&node->locked);
@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
static inline
void mcs_spin_unlock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
{
- struct mcs_spinlock *next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next);
+ struct mcs_spinlock *next = READ_ONCE(node->next);
if (likely(!next)) {
/*
@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ void mcs_spin_unlock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
if (likely(cmpxchg(lock, node, NULL) == node))
return;
/* Wait until the next pointer is set */
- while (!(next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next)))
+ while (!(next = READ_ONCE(node->next)))
cpu_relax_lowlatency();
}
diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index 43bf25ef3c81..16b2d3cc88b0 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -266,7 +266,7 @@ static inline int mutex_can_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock)
return 0;
rcu_read_lock();
- owner = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->owner);
+ owner = READ_ONCE(lock->owner);
if (owner)
retval = owner->on_cpu;
rcu_read_unlock();
@@ -340,7 +340,7 @@ static bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock,
* As such, when deadlock detection needs to be
* performed the optimistic spinning cannot be done.
*/
- if (ACCESS_ONCE(ww->ctx))
+ if (READ_ONCE(ww->ctx))
break;
}
@@ -348,7 +348,7 @@ static bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock,
* If there's an owner, wait for it to either
* release the lock or go to sleep.
*/
- owner = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->owner);
+ owner = READ_ONCE(lock->owner);
if (owner && !mutex_spin_on_owner(lock, owner))
break;
@@ -487,7 +487,7 @@ static inline int __sched
__ww_mutex_lock_check_stamp(struct mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
{
struct ww_mutex *ww = container_of(lock, struct ww_mutex, base);
- struct ww_acquire_ctx *hold_ctx = ACCESS_ONCE(ww->ctx);
+ struct ww_acquire_ctx *hold_ctx = READ_ONCE(ww->ctx);
if (!hold_ctx)
return 0;
diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
index c112d00341b0..dc85ee23a26f 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
@@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
prev = decode_cpu(old);
node->prev = prev;
- ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node;
+ WRITE_ONCE(prev->next, node);
/*
* Normally @prev is untouchable after the above store; because at that
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
* cmpxchg in an attempt to undo our queueing.
*/
- while (!ACCESS_ONCE(node->locked)) {
+ while (!READ_ONCE(node->locked)) {
/*
* If we need to reschedule bail... so we can block.
*/
@@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ unqueue:
* Or we race against a concurrent unqueue()'s step-B, in which
* case its step-C will write us a new @node->prev pointer.
*/
- prev = ACCESS_ONCE(node->prev);
+ prev = READ_ONCE(node->prev);
}
/*
@@ -170,8 +170,8 @@ unqueue:
* it will wait in Step-A.
*/
- ACCESS_ONCE(next->prev) = prev;
- ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = next;
+ WRITE_ONCE(next->prev, prev);
+ WRITE_ONCE(prev->next, next);
return false;
}
@@ -193,11 +193,11 @@ void osq_unlock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
node = this_cpu_ptr(&osq_node);
next = xchg(&node->next, NULL);
if (next) {
- ACCESS_ONCE(next->locked) = 1;
+ WRITE_ONCE(next->locked, 1);
return;
}
next = osq_wait_next(lock, node, NULL);
if (next)
- ACCESS_ONCE(next->locked) = 1;
+ WRITE_ONCE(next->locked, 1);
}
diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
index e4ad019e23f5..06e2214edf98 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
@@ -279,7 +279,7 @@ static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock(long count, struct rw_semaphore *sem)
*/
static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock_unqueued(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
{
- long old, count = ACCESS_ONCE(sem->count);
+ long old, count = READ_ONCE(sem->count);
while (true) {
if (!(count == 0 || count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS))
@@ -304,9 +304,9 @@ static inline bool rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
return false;
rcu_read_lock();
- owner = ACCESS_ONCE(sem->owner);
+ owner = READ_ONCE(sem->owner);
if (!owner) {
- long count = ACCESS_ONCE(sem->count);
+ long count = READ_ONCE(sem->count);
/*
* If sem->owner is not set, yet we have just recently entered the
* slowpath with the lock being active, then there is a possibility
@@ -385,7 +385,7 @@ static bool rwsem_optimistic_spin(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
goto done;
while (true) {
- owner = ACCESS_ONCE(sem->owner);
+ owner = READ_ONCE(sem->owner);
if (owner && !rwsem_spin_on_owner(sem, owner))
break;
@@ -459,7 +459,7 @@ struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_write_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
/* we're now waiting on the lock, but no longer actively locking */
if (waiting) {
- count = ACCESS_ONCE(sem->count);
+ count = READ_ONCE(sem->count);
/*
* If there were already threads queued before us and there are