[dpdk-dev] [EXT] [PATCH v8 3/3] spinlock: reimplement with atomic one-way barrier builtins

[Honnappa Nagarahalli]

> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---
> > The __sync builtin based implementation generates full memory barriers
> > ('dmb ish') on Arm platforms. Using C11 atomic builtins to generate
> > one way barriers.
> >
> >
> >  lib/librte_eal/common/include/generic/rte_spinlock.h | 18
> > +++++++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/generic/rte_spinlock.h
> > b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/generic/rte_spinlock.h
> > index c4c3fc3..87ae7a4 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/generic/rte_spinlock.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/generic/rte_spinlock.h
> > @@ -61,9 +61,14 @@ rte_spinlock_lock(rte_spinlock_t *sl);  static
> > inline void  rte_spinlock_lock(rte_spinlock_t *sl)  {
> > -	while (__sync_lock_test_and_set(&sl->locked, 1))
> > -		while(sl->locked)
> > +	int exp = 0;
> > +
> > +	while (!__atomic_compare_exchange_n(&sl->locked, &exp, 1, 0,
> > +				__ATOMIC_ACQUIRE, __ATOMIC_RELAXED))
> {
> 
> Would it be clean to use __atomic_test_and_set() to avoid explicit exp = 0.
We addressed it here: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-January/122363.html

> 
> 
> > +		while (__atomic_load_n(&sl->locked, __ATOMIC_RELAXED))
> >  			rte_pause();
> > +		exp = 0;
> > +	}
> >  }
> >  #endif
> >
> > @@ -80,7 +85,7 @@ rte_spinlock_unlock (rte_spinlock_t *sl);  static
> > inline void  rte_spinlock_unlock (rte_spinlock_t *sl)  {
> > -	__sync_lock_release(&sl->locked);
> > +	__atomic_store_n(&sl->locked, 0, __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> 
> __atomic_clear(.., __ATOMIC_RELEASE) looks more clean to me.
This needs the operand to be of type bool.

> 
> >  }
> >  #endif
> >
> > @@ -99,7 +104,10 @@ rte_spinlock_trylock (rte_spinlock_t *sl);  static
> > inline int  rte_spinlock_trylock (rte_spinlock_t *sl)  {
> > -	return __sync_lock_test_and_set(&sl->locked,1) == 0;
> > +	int exp = 0;
> > +	return __atomic_compare_exchange_n(&sl->locked, &exp, 1,
> > +				0, /* disallow spurious failure */
> > +				__ATOMIC_ACQUIRE, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> 
> return  (__atomic_test_and_set(.., __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE) == 0) will be more
> clean version.
> 
> >  }
> >  #endif
> >
> > @@ -113,7 +121,7 @@ rte_spinlock_trylock (rte_spinlock_t *sl)
> >   */
> >  static inline int rte_spinlock_is_locked (rte_spinlock_t *sl)  {
> > -	return sl->locked;
> > +	return __atomic_load_n(&sl->locked, __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE);
> 
> Does __ATOMIC_RELAXED will be sufficient?
This is also addressed here: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-January/122363.html

I think you approved the patch here: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-January/123238.html
I think this patch just needs your reviewed-by tag :)
 
> 
> 
> >  }
> >
> >  /**