user/sven/linux.git/include/linux/seqlock.h, branch v3.9.8

seqlock: Use seqcount infrastructure

2013-02-19T07:43:34Z

No point in having different implementations for the same thing. Change the macro mess to inline functions where possible. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner

seqlock: Remove unused functions

2013-02-19T07:43:33Z

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner

seqlock: add 'raw_seqcount_begin()' function

2012-05-04T22:13:54Z

The normal read_seqcount_begin() function will wait for any current writers to exit their critical region by looping until the sequence count is even. That "wait for sequence count to stabilize" is the right thing to do if the read-locker will just retry the whole operation on contention: no point in doing a potentially expensive reader sequence if we know at the beginning that we'll just end up re-doing it all. HOWEVER. Some users don't actually retry the operation, but instead will abort and do the operation with proper locking. So the sequence count case may be the optimistic quick case, but in the presense of writers you may want to do full locking in order to guarantee forward progress. The prime example of this would be the RCU name lookup. And in that case, you may well be better off without the "retry early", and are in a rush to instead get to the failure handling. Thus this "raw" interface that just returns the sequence number without testing it - it just forces the low bit to zero so that read_seqcount_retry() will always fail such a "active concurrent writer" scenario. Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

Fix __read_seqcount_begin() to use ACCESS_ONCE for sequence value read

2012-05-04T21:46:02Z

We really need to use a ACCESS_ONCE() on the sequence value read in __read_seqcount_begin(), because otherwise the compiler might end up reloading the value in between the test and the return of it. As a result, it might end up returning an odd value (which means that a write is in progress). If the reader is then fast enough that that odd value is still the current one when the read_seqcount_retry() is done, we might end up with a "successful" read sequence, even despite the concurrent write being active. In practice this probably never really happens - there just isn't anything else going on around the read of the sequence count, and the common case is that we end up having a read barrier immediately afterwards. So the code sequence in which gcc might decide to reaload from memory is small, and there's no reason to believe it would ever actually do the reload. But if the compiler ever were to decide to do so, it would be incredibly annoying to debug. Let's just make sure. Cc: stable@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

linux/seqlock.h should #include asm/processor.h for cpu_relax()

2011-06-11T20:17:28Z

It uses cpu_relax(), and so needs Without this patch, I see: CC arch/mn10300/kernel/asm-offsets.s In file included from include/linux/time.h:8, from include/linux/timex.h:56, from include/linux/sched.h:57, from arch/mn10300/kernel/asm-offsets.c:7: include/linux/seqlock.h: In function 'read_seqbegin': include/linux/seqlock.h:91: error: implicit declaration of function 'cpu_relax' whilst building asb2364_defconfig on MN10300. Signed-off-by: David Howells Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

seqlock: Get rid of SEQLOCK_UNLOCKED

2011-05-24T13:22:17Z

All static seqlock should be initialized with the lockdep friendly __SEQLOCK_UNLOCKED() macro. Remove legacy SEQLOCK_UNLOCKED() macro. Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet Cc: David Miller Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/%3C1306238888.3026.31.camel%40edumazet-laptop%3E Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner

seqlock: Don't smp_rmb in seqlock reader spin loop

2011-05-12T10:13:43Z

Move the smp_rmb after cpu_relax loop in read_seqlock and add ACCESS_ONCE to make sure the test and return are consistent. A multi-threaded core in the lab didn't like the update from 2.6.35 to 2.6.36, to the point it would hang during boot when multiple threads were active. Bisection showed af5ab277ded04bd9bc6b048c5a2f0e7d70ef0867 (clockevents: Remove the per cpu tick skew) as the culprit and it is supported with stack traces showing xtime_lock waits including tick_do_update_jiffies64 and/or update_vsyscall. Experimentation showed the combination of cpu_relax and smp_rmb was significantly slowing the progress of other threads sharing the core, and this patch is effective in avoiding the hang. A theory is the rmb is affecting the whole core while the cpu_relax is causing a resource rebalance flush, together they cause an interfernce cadance that is unbroken when the seqlock reader has interrupts disabled. At first I was confused why the refactor in 3c22cd5709e8143444a6d08682a87f4c57902df3 (kernel: optimise seqlock) didn't affect this patch application, but after some study that affected seqcount not seqlock. The new seqcount was not factored back into the seqlock. I defer that the future. While the removal of the timer interrupt offset created contention for the xtime lock while a cpu does the additonal work to update the system clock, the seqlock implementation with the tight rmb spin loop goes back much further, and is just waiting for the right trigger. Cc: Signed-off-by: Milton Miller Cc: Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andi Kleen Cc: Nick Piggin Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Anton Blanchard Cc: Paul McKenney Acked-by: Eric Dumazet Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/%3Cseqlock-rmb%40mdm.bga.com%3E Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner

kernel: optimise seqlock

2011-01-07T06:50:27Z

Add branch annotations for seqlock read fastpath, and introduce __read_seqcount_begin and __read_seqcount_end functions, that can avoid the smp_rmb() if used carefully. These will be used by store-free path walking algorithm performance is critical and seqlocks are in use. Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin

seqlock: livelock fix

2008-04-24T22:25:08Z

Thomas Gleixner debugged a particularly ugly seqlock related livelock: do not process the seq-read section if we know it beforehand that the test at the end of the section will fail ... Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

seqlocks: trivial remove weird whitespace

2007-04-27T17:44:42Z

Signed-off-by: Daniel Walker Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds