From f4cdf7ca9a1fdcca413157df19753f388a5a224e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Linus Torvalds Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2026 10:09:22 -0700 Subject: Merge tag 'media/v7.3-1' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mchehab/linux-media Pull media updates from Mauro Carvalho Chehab: - v4l2-core: added ISP statistics support and per-block validation - v4l2-core: Allow unknown HDR10 white point and luminance - New camera sensors: Sony IMX678 and IMX471m, Himax HM1092 IR sensor - New codec: Milos: VPU v2.0 codec support - isp driver: gained support for Dreamchip RPPX1 ISP framework - vsp1 driver: gained support for RZ/T2H and RZ/N2H - Novalake driver: gained CVS support for new NVL hardware - dvb-core: fix feed leak on failed DMX_ADD_PID - several driver fixes, cleanups and minor improvements * tag 'media/v7.3-1' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mchehab/linux-media: (308 commits) media: ipu-bridge: check all DMI entries when overriding sensor rotation media: v4l2-async: avoid deleting unlinked ASC entry on link error media: rzg2l-cru: Align bytesperline to hardware DMA stride requirement media: intel/ipu6: fix async notifier cleanup leak on parse error media: staging/ipu7: fix async notifier UAF on probe error path media: amd: isp4: fix self-deadlock in isp4sd_pwron_and_init() error path media: amd: isp4: release partial allocations in isp4if_alloc_fw_gpumem() media: rcar-isp: Fix VSPX reference leaks media: rcar-isp: Release ISPCORE resources media: i2c: imx415: Release runtime PM reference on VBLANK error media: i2c: imx415: Return test pattern write errors media: renesas: vsp1: Declare index variables in for loop statement media: renesas: vsp1: Make reset control optional to support platforms without a reset line media: dt-bindings: media: renesas,vsp1: Document RZ/T2H and RZ/N2H SoCs media: dt-bindings: media: renesas,fcp: Document RZ/T2H and RZ/N2H SoCs media: nxp: imx8-isi: Add additional 32-bit RGB format support media: nxp: imx8-isi: Add 16-bit raw Bayer format support media: nxp: imx8-isi: Implement per-stream reference counting for multiplexed streams media: nxp: imx8-isi: Use BIT_ULL() for 64-bit stream masks media: nxp: imx8-isi: Correct color map between V4L2 and ISI ... --- Documentation/locking/spinlocks.rst | 165 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 165 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/locking/spinlocks.rst (limited to 'Documentation/locking/spinlocks.rst') diff --git a/Documentation/locking/spinlocks.rst b/Documentation/locking/spinlocks.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000..bec96f7a9 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/locking/spinlocks.rst @@ -0,0 +1,165 @@ +=============== +Locking lessons +=============== + +Lesson 1: Spin locks +==================== + +The most basic primitive for locking is spinlock:: + + static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(xxx_lock); + + unsigned long flags; + + spin_lock_irqsave(&xxx_lock, flags); + ... critical section here .. + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&xxx_lock, flags); + +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. This works well even under UP also, so the code does _not_ need to +worry about UP vs SMP issues: the spinlocks work correctly under both. + + NOTE! Implications of spin_locks for memory are further described in: + + Documentation/memory-barriers.txt + + (5) ACQUIRE operations. + + (6) RELEASE operations. + +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). + +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 (for +example, internal driver data structures that nobody else ever touches). + + NOTE! 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. + +---- + +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 sometimes useful. 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. + + NOTE! reader-writer locks require more atomic memory operations than + simple spinlocks. Unless the reader critical section is long, you + are better off just using spinlocks. + +The routines look the same as above:: + + rwlock_t xxx_lock = __RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED(xxx_lock); + + 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 may be useful for complex data structures like +linked lists, especially searching for entries without changing the list +itself. The read lock allows many concurrent readers. Anything that +**changes** the list will have to get the write lock. + + NOTE! RCU is better for list traversal, but requires careful + attention to design detail (see Documentation/RCU/listRCU.rst). + +Also, 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. + + NOTE! We are working hard to remove reader-writer spinlocks in most + cases, so please don't add a new one without consensus. (Instead, see + Documentation/RCU/rcu.rst for complete information.) + +---- + +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 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). + + Linus + +---- + +Reference information: +====================== + +For dynamic initialization, use spin_lock_init() or rwlock_init() as +appropriate:: + + 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); + +For static initialization, use DEFINE_SPINLOCK() / DEFINE_RWLOCK() or +__SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED() / __RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED() as appropriate. -- cgit v1.3.1