Subversion Repositories test_project

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.

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 . 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