237 lines
8.8 KiB
Plaintext
237 lines
8.8 KiB
Plaintext
SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED and RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED defeat lockdep state tracking and
|
|
are hence deprecated.
|
|
|
|
Please use DEFINE_SPINLOCK()/DEFINE_RWLOCK() or
|
|
__SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED()/__RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED() as appropriate for static
|
|
initialization.
|
|
|
|
Most of the time, you can simply turn:
|
|
|
|
static spinlock_t xxx_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
|
|
|
|
into:
|
|
|
|
static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(xxx_lock);
|
|
|
|
Static structure member variables go from:
|
|
|
|
struct foo bar {
|
|
.lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
to:
|
|
|
|
struct foo bar {
|
|
.lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(bar.lock);
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
Declaration of static rw_locks undergo a similar transformation.
|
|
|
|
Dynamic initialization, when necessary, may be performed as
|
|
demonstrated below.
|
|
|
|
spinlock_t xxx_lock;
|
|
rwlock_t xxx_rw_lock;
|
|
|
|
static int __init xxx_init(void)
|
|
{
|
|
spin_lock_init(&xxx_lock);
|
|
rwlock_init(&xxx_rw_lock);
|
|
...
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
module_init(xxx_init);
|
|
|
|
The following discussion is still valid, however, with the dynamic
|
|
initialization of spinlocks or with DEFINE_SPINLOCK, etc., used
|
|
instead of SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED.
|
|
|
|
-----------------------
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 2 Jan 1998, Doug Ledford wrote:
|
|
>
|
|
> I'm working on making the aic7xxx driver more SMP friendly (as well as
|
|
> importing the latest FreeBSD sequencer code to have 7895 support) and wanted
|
|
> to get some info from you. The goal here is to make the various routines
|
|
> SMP safe as well as UP safe during interrupts and other manipulating
|
|
> routines. So far, I've added a spin_lock variable to things like my queue
|
|
> structs. Now, from what I recall, there are some spin lock functions I can
|
|
> use to lock these spin locks from other use as opposed to a (nasty)
|
|
> save_flags(); cli(); stuff; restore_flags(); construct. Where do I find
|
|
> these routines and go about making use of them? Do they only lock on a
|
|
> per-processor basis or can they also lock say an interrupt routine from
|
|
> mucking with a queue if the queue routine was manipulating it when the
|
|
> interrupt occurred, or should I still use a cli(); based construct on that
|
|
> one?
|
|
|
|
See <asm/spinlock.h>. The basic version is:
|
|
|
|
spinlock_t xxx_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
|
|
|
|
|
|
unsigned long flags;
|
|
|
|
spin_lock_irqsave(&xxx_lock, flags);
|
|
... critical section here ..
|
|
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&xxx_lock, flags);
|
|
|
|
and the above is always safe. It will disable interrupts _locally_, but the
|
|
spinlock itself will guarantee the global lock, so it will guarantee that
|
|
there is only one thread-of-control within the region(s) protected by that
|
|
lock.
|
|
|
|
Note that it works well even under UP - the above sequence under UP
|
|
essentially is just the same as doing a
|
|
|
|
unsigned long flags;
|
|
|
|
save_flags(flags); cli();
|
|
... critical section ...
|
|
restore_flags(flags);
|
|
|
|
so the code does _not_ need to worry about UP vs SMP issues: the spinlocks
|
|
work correctly under both (and spinlocks are actually more efficient on
|
|
architectures that allow doing the "save_flags + cli" in one go because I
|
|
don't export that interface normally).
|
|
|
|
NOTE NOTE NOTE! The reason the spinlock is so much faster than a global
|
|
interrupt lock under SMP is exactly because it disables interrupts only on
|
|
the local CPU. The spin-lock is safe only when you _also_ use the lock
|
|
itself to do locking across CPU's, which implies that EVERYTHING that
|
|
touches a shared variable has to agree about the spinlock they want to
|
|
use.
|
|
|
|
The above is usually pretty simple (you usually need and want only one
|
|
spinlock for most things - using more than one spinlock can make things a
|
|
lot more complex and even slower and is usually worth it only for
|
|
sequences that you _know_ need to be split up: avoid it at all cost if you
|
|
aren't sure). HOWEVER, it _does_ mean that if you have some code that does
|
|
|
|
cli();
|
|
.. critical section ..
|
|
sti();
|
|
|
|
and another sequence that does
|
|
|
|
spin_lock_irqsave(flags);
|
|
.. critical section ..
|
|
spin_unlock_irqrestore(flags);
|
|
|
|
then they are NOT mutually exclusive, and the critical regions can happen
|
|
at the same time on two different CPU's. That's fine per se, but the
|
|
critical regions had better be critical for different things (ie they
|
|
can't stomp on each other).
|
|
|
|
The above is a problem mainly if you end up mixing code - for example the
|
|
routines in ll_rw_block() tend to use cli/sti to protect the atomicity of
|
|
their actions, and if a driver uses spinlocks instead then you should
|
|
think about issues like the above..
|
|
|
|
This is really the only really hard part about spinlocks: once you start
|
|
using spinlocks they tend to expand to areas you might not have noticed
|
|
before, because you have to make sure the spinlocks correctly protect the
|
|
shared data structures _everywhere_ they are used. The spinlocks are most
|
|
easily added to places that are completely independent of other code (ie
|
|
internal driver data structures that nobody else ever touches, for
|
|
example).
|
|
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
Lesson 2: reader-writer spinlocks.
|
|
|
|
If your data accesses have a very natural pattern where you usually tend
|
|
to mostly read from the shared variables, the reader-writer locks
|
|
(rw_lock) versions of the spinlocks are often nicer. They allow multiple
|
|
readers to be in the same critical region at once, but if somebody wants
|
|
to change the variables it has to get an exclusive write lock. The
|
|
routines look the same as above:
|
|
|
|
rwlock_t xxx_lock = RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
|
|
|
|
|
|
unsigned long flags;
|
|
|
|
read_lock_irqsave(&xxx_lock, flags);
|
|
.. critical section that only reads the info ...
|
|
read_unlock_irqrestore(&xxx_lock, flags);
|
|
|
|
write_lock_irqsave(&xxx_lock, flags);
|
|
.. read and write exclusive access to the info ...
|
|
write_unlock_irqrestore(&xxx_lock, flags);
|
|
|
|
The above kind of lock is useful for complex data structures like linked
|
|
lists etc, especially when you know that most of the work is to just
|
|
traverse the list searching for entries without changing the list itself,
|
|
for example. Then you can use the read lock for that kind of list
|
|
traversal, which allows many concurrent readers. Anything that _changes_
|
|
the list will have to get the write lock.
|
|
|
|
Note: you cannot "upgrade" a read-lock to a write-lock, so if you at _any_
|
|
time need to do any changes (even if you don't do it every time), you have
|
|
to get the write-lock at the very beginning. I could fairly easily add a
|
|
primitive to create a "upgradeable" read-lock, but it hasn't been an issue
|
|
yet. Tell me if you'd want one.
|
|
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
Lesson 3: spinlocks revisited.
|
|
|
|
The single spin-lock primitives above are by no means the only ones. They
|
|
are the most safe ones, and the ones that work under all circumstances,
|
|
but partly _because_ they are safe they are also fairly slow. They are
|
|
much faster than a generic global cli/sti pair, but slower than they'd
|
|
need to be, because they do have to disable interrupts (which is just a
|
|
single instruction on a x86, but it's an expensive one - and on other
|
|
architectures it can be worse).
|
|
|
|
If you have a case where you have to protect a data structure across
|
|
several CPU's and you want to use spinlocks you can potentially use
|
|
cheaper versions of the spinlocks. IFF you know that the spinlocks are
|
|
never used in interrupt handlers, you can use the non-irq versions:
|
|
|
|
spin_lock(&lock);
|
|
...
|
|
spin_unlock(&lock);
|
|
|
|
(and the equivalent read-write versions too, of course). The spinlock will
|
|
guarantee the same kind of exclusive access, and it will be much faster.
|
|
This is useful if you know that the data in question is only ever
|
|
manipulated from a "process context", ie no interrupts involved.
|
|
|
|
The reasons you mustn't use these versions if you have interrupts that
|
|
play with the spinlock is that you can get deadlocks:
|
|
|
|
spin_lock(&lock);
|
|
...
|
|
<- interrupt comes in:
|
|
spin_lock(&lock);
|
|
|
|
where an interrupt tries to lock an already locked variable. This is ok if
|
|
the other interrupt happens on another CPU, but it is _not_ ok if the
|
|
interrupt happens on the same CPU that already holds the lock, because the
|
|
lock will obviously never be released (because the interrupt is waiting
|
|
for the lock, and the lock-holder is interrupted by the interrupt and will
|
|
not continue until the interrupt has been processed).
|
|
|
|
(This is also the reason why the irq-versions of the spinlocks only need
|
|
to disable the _local_ interrupts - it's ok to use spinlocks in interrupts
|
|
on other CPU's, because an interrupt on another CPU doesn't interrupt the
|
|
CPU that holds the lock, so the lock-holder can continue and eventually
|
|
releases the lock).
|
|
|
|
Note that you can be clever with read-write locks and interrupts. For
|
|
example, if you know that the interrupt only ever gets a read-lock, then
|
|
you can use a non-irq version of read locks everywhere - because they
|
|
don't block on each other (and thus there is no dead-lock wrt interrupts.
|
|
But when you do the write-lock, you have to use the irq-safe version.
|
|
|
|
For an example of being clever with rw-locks, see the "waitqueue_lock"
|
|
handling in kernel/sched.c - nothing ever _changes_ a wait-queue from
|
|
within an interrupt, they only read the queue in order to know whom to
|
|
wake up. So read-locks are safe (which is good: they are very common
|
|
indeed), while write-locks need to protect themselves against interrupts.
|
|
|
|
Linus
|
|
|
|
|