Re: [PATCH v3] locking/osq_lock: Ensure proper locking semantics for osq_lock/osq_unlock()

[David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 13:53:05 -0400
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 9/15/26 4:26 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 04:21:02PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:  
> >> The osq_lock is special in the sense that lock transfer from one CPU to
> >> the next can happen either over the common optimistic_spin_queue.tail
> >> value with uncontended lock or over a lock waiter's own percpu
> >> optimistic_spin_node.locked flag when the lock is contended.
> >>
> >> To ensure proper lock synchronization, we need to provide
> >> the acquire/release semantics for the osq_lock/osq_unlock()
> >> functions in both cases. This is currently the case for the
> >> common optimistic_spin_queue.tail value, but not for the percpu
> >> optimistic_spin_node.locked flag as the proper barriers can be missing.
> >>
> >> The "node->locked" read in osq_lock() was relaxed by commit 036cc30c6b6a
> >> ("locking/osq: No need for load/acquire when acquire-polling") a while
> >> ago as the smp_load_acquire() loop was causing a performance hit due to
> >> the repeated acquire barriers in the loop and it argued that an earlier
> >> atomic_xchg() call could provide the needed barrier and reordering
> >> wasn't a problem in the way osq_lock is being used by mutex and rwsem
> >> for queuing purpose only. That atomic_xchg() barrier does not work
> >> as a proper acquire barrier for osq_lock() if the lock hasn't been
> >> acquired or isn't ready to be acquired when the barrier ends. So an
> >> acquire barrier is still needed in order to have proper locking semantics.
> >>
> >> The performance impact stated in that patch is due to repeated issuance
> >> of acquire barrier which can be expensive depending on the architectures
> >> and the actual processor used. It was not clear what machine and what
> >> benchmark was being used to produce the performance data. Anyway, with
> >> the new smp_cond_load_acquire() helper, only one acquire barrier is
> >> issued at the end of the loop. So even if there is a performance impact,
> >> it should be less than a repeating one.
> >>
> >> As for the two percpu optimistic_spin_node.locked setting in osq_unlock(),
> >> they are currently preceded by a full barrier xchg() call which can
> >> provide the needed release barrier. Add comments saying that a release
> >> barrier is needed for the proper functioning of the unlock operation
> >> to alert people from accidentally remove the barrier when the code is
> >> updated.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 036cc30c6b6a ("locking/osq: No need for load/acquire when acquire-polling")
> >> Tested-by: Håkon Bugge <haakon.bugge@oracle.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
> >> ---
> >>   kernel/locking/osq_lock.c | 12 +++++++++---
> >>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> [v2] Reword the commit log and keep the WRITE_ONCE() in osq_unlock()
> >>       with comments.
> >> [v3] Fix the comment above smp_cond_load_acquire().  
> > I still see no reason why this should be applied. Or even have this
> > Fixes tag.  
> 
> The main reason for this patch is for addressing the locking test 
> failure reported by Håkon due to missing barrier. I do know that with 
> the current osq_lock() use case, it is not a real problem. I just don't 
> like inconsistency that an acquire barrier is just missing in just one 
> place. I don't mind removing the Fixes tag though.
> 
> In your comment to David's "locking/osq_lock: Set prev_cpu=0 instead of 
> locked=1" patch, you suggested adding smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() 
> after finding that the lock had been granted which is exactly what the 
> change from smp_cond_load_relaxed() to smp_cond_load_acquire() is doing. 
> Right?

I think it is a smaller barrier - since it is only in the 'lock acquired'
path.
Whether it is enough is another data point.
I don't remember anyone saying which memory reads are getting re-ordered.

I really do need to find out exactly what the barriers do (or rather which
feature of the cpu hardware makes them necessary).
They might be stopping out of order execution and speculative execution,
but the re-ordering of reads might be a feature of the cache.

David 

> 
> Cheers,
> Longman
>