linux-toradex.git/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h, branch v4.3-rc2 Linux kernel for Apalis and Colibri modules rcu,locking: Privatize smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() 2015-08-04T15:49:21+00:00 Paul E. McKenney paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com 2015-07-15T01:35:23+00:00 12d560f4ea87030667438a169912380be00cea4b RCU is the only thing that uses smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), and is likely the only thing that ever will use it, so this commit makes this macro private to RCU. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org> 
RCU is the only thing that uses smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), and is
likely the only thing that ever will use it, so this commit makes this
macro private to RCU.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>
powerpc: Add smp_mb() to arch_spin_is_locked() 2014-08-13T05:13:26+00:00 Michael Ellerman mpe@ellerman.id.au 2014-08-07T05:36:17+00:00 51d7d5205d3389a32859f9939f1093f267409929 The kernel defines the function spin_is_locked(), which can be used to check if a spinlock is currently locked. Using spin_is_locked() on a lock you don't hold is obviously racy. That is, even though you may observe that the lock is unlocked, it may become locked at any time. There is (at least) one exception to that, which is if two locks are used as a pair, and the holder of each checks the status of the other before doing any update. Assuming *A and *B are two locks, and *COUNTER is a shared non-atomic value: The first CPU does: spin_lock(*A) if spin_is_locked(*B) # nothing else smp_mb() LOAD r = *COUNTER r++ STORE *COUNTER = r spin_unlock(*A) And the second CPU does: spin_lock(*B) if spin_is_locked(*A) # nothing else smp_mb() LOAD r = *COUNTER r++ STORE *COUNTER = r spin_unlock(*B) Although this is a strange locking construct, it should work. It seems to be understood, but not documented, that spin_is_locked() is not a memory barrier, so in the examples above and below the caller inserts its own memory barrier before acting on the result of spin_is_locked(). For now we assume spin_is_locked() is implemented as below, and we break it out in our examples: bool spin_is_locked(*LOCK) { LOAD l = *LOCK return l.locked } Our intuition is that there should be no problem even if the two code sequences run simultaneously such as: CPU 0 CPU 1 ================================================== spin_lock(*A) spin_lock(*B) LOAD b = *B LOAD a = *A if b.locked # true if a.locked # true # nothing # nothing spin_unlock(*A) spin_unlock(*B) If one CPU gets the lock before the other then it will do the update and the other CPU will back off: CPU 0 CPU 1 ================================================== spin_lock(*A) LOAD b = *B spin_lock(*B) if b.locked # false LOAD a = *A else if a.locked # true smp_mb() # nothing LOAD r1 = *COUNTER spin_unlock(*B) r1++ STORE *COUNTER = r1 spin_unlock(*A) However in reality spin_lock() itself is not indivisible. On powerpc we implement it as a load-and-reserve and store-conditional. Ignoring the retry logic for the lost reservation case, it boils down to: spin_lock(*LOCK) { LOAD l = *LOCK l.locked = true STORE *LOCK = l ACQUIRE_BARRIER } The ACQUIRE_BARRIER is required to give spin_lock() ACQUIRE semantics as defined in memory-barriers.txt: This acts as a one-way permeable barrier. It guarantees that all memory operations after the ACQUIRE operation will appear to happen after the ACQUIRE operation with respect to the other components of the system. On modern powerpc systems we use lwsync for ACQUIRE_BARRIER. lwsync is also know as "lightweight sync", or "sync 1". As described in Power ISA v2.07 section B.2.1.1, in this scenario the lwsync is not the barrier itself. It instead causes the LOAD of *LOCK to act as the barrier, preventing any loads or stores in the locked region from occurring prior to the load of *LOCK. Whether this behaviour is in accordance with the definition of ACQUIRE semantics in memory-barriers.txt is open to discussion, we may switch to a different barrier in future. What this means in practice is that the following can occur: CPU 0 CPU 1 ================================================== LOAD a = *A LOAD b = *B a.locked = true b.locked = true LOAD b = *B LOAD a = *A STORE *A = a STORE *B = b if b.locked # false if a.locked # false else else smp_mb() smp_mb() LOAD r1 = *COUNTER LOAD r2 = *COUNTER r1++ r2++ STORE *COUNTER = r1 STORE *COUNTER = r2 # Lost update spin_unlock(*A) spin_unlock(*B) That is, the load of *B can occur prior to the store that makes *A visibly locked. And similarly for CPU 1. The result is both CPUs hold their lock and believe the other lock is unlocked. The easiest fix for this is to add a full memory barrier to the start of spin_is_locked(), so adding to our previous definition would give us: bool spin_is_locked(*LOCK) { smp_mb() LOAD l = *LOCK return l.locked } The new barrier orders the store to the lock we are locking vs the load of the other lock: CPU 0 CPU 1 ================================================== LOAD a = *A LOAD b = *B a.locked = true b.locked = true STORE *A = a STORE *B = b smp_mb() smp_mb() LOAD b = *B LOAD a = *A if b.locked # true if a.locked # true # nothing # nothing spin_unlock(*A) spin_unlock(*B) Although the above example is theoretical, there is code similar to this example in sem_lock() in ipc/sem.c. This commit in addition to the next commit appears to be a fix for crashes we are seeing in that code where we believe this race happens in practice. Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> 
The kernel defines the function spin_is_locked(), which can be used to
check if a spinlock is currently locked.

Using spin_is_locked() on a lock you don't hold is obviously racy. That
is, even though you may observe that the lock is unlocked, it may become
locked at any time.

There is (at least) one exception to that, which is if two locks are
used as a pair, and the holder of each checks the status of the other
before doing any update.

Assuming *A and *B are two locks, and *COUNTER is a shared non-atomic
value:

The first CPU does:

	spin_lock(*A)

	if spin_is_locked(*B)
		# nothing
	else
		smp_mb()
		LOAD r = *COUNTER
		r++
		STORE *COUNTER = r

	spin_unlock(*A)

And the second CPU does:

	spin_lock(*B)

	if spin_is_locked(*A)
		# nothing
	else
		smp_mb()
		LOAD r = *COUNTER
		r++
		STORE *COUNTER = r

	spin_unlock(*B)

Although this is a strange locking construct, it should work.

It seems to be understood, but not documented, that spin_is_locked() is
not a memory barrier, so in the examples above and below the caller
inserts its own memory barrier before acting on the result of
spin_is_locked().

For now we assume spin_is_locked() is implemented as below, and we break
it out in our examples:

	bool spin_is_locked(*LOCK) {
		LOAD l = *LOCK
		return l.locked
	}

Our intuition is that there should be no problem even if the two code
sequences run simultaneously such as:

	CPU 0			CPU 1
	==================================================
	spin_lock(*A)		spin_lock(*B)
	LOAD b = *B		LOAD a = *A
	if b.locked # true	if a.locked # true
	# nothing		# nothing
	spin_unlock(*A)		spin_unlock(*B)

If one CPU gets the lock before the other then it will do the update and
the other CPU will back off:

	CPU 0			CPU 1
	==================================================
	spin_lock(*A)
	LOAD b = *B
				spin_lock(*B)
	if b.locked # false	LOAD a = *A
	else			if a.locked # true
	smp_mb()		# nothing
	LOAD r1 = *COUNTER	spin_unlock(*B)
	r1++
	STORE *COUNTER = r1
	spin_unlock(*A)

However in reality spin_lock() itself is not indivisible. On powerpc we
implement it as a load-and-reserve and store-conditional.

Ignoring the retry logic for the lost reservation case, it boils down to:
	spin_lock(*LOCK) {
		LOAD l = *LOCK
		l.locked = true
		STORE *LOCK = l
		ACQUIRE_BARRIER
	}

The ACQUIRE_BARRIER is required to give spin_lock() ACQUIRE semantics as
defined in memory-barriers.txt:

     This acts as a one-way permeable barrier.  It guarantees that all
     memory operations after the ACQUIRE operation will appear to happen
     after the ACQUIRE operation with respect to the other components of
     the system.

On modern powerpc systems we use lwsync for ACQUIRE_BARRIER. lwsync is
also know as "lightweight sync", or "sync 1".

As described in Power ISA v2.07 section B.2.1.1, in this scenario the
lwsync is not the barrier itself. It instead causes the LOAD of *LOCK to
act as the barrier, preventing any loads or stores in the locked region
from occurring prior to the load of *LOCK.

Whether this behaviour is in accordance with the definition of ACQUIRE
semantics in memory-barriers.txt is open to discussion, we may switch to
a different barrier in future.

What this means in practice is that the following can occur:

	CPU 0			CPU 1
	==================================================
	LOAD a = *A 		LOAD b = *B
	a.locked = true		b.locked = true
	LOAD b = *B		LOAD a = *A
	STORE *A = a		STORE *B = b
	if b.locked # false	if a.locked # false
	else			else
	smp_mb()		smp_mb()
	LOAD r1 = *COUNTER	LOAD r2 = *COUNTER
	r1++			r2++
	STORE *COUNTER = r1
				STORE *COUNTER = r2	# Lost update
	spin_unlock(*A)		spin_unlock(*B)

That is, the load of *B can occur prior to the store that makes *A
visibly locked. And similarly for CPU 1. The result is both CPUs hold
their lock and believe the other lock is unlocked.

The easiest fix for this is to add a full memory barrier to the start of
spin_is_locked(), so adding to our previous definition would give us:

	bool spin_is_locked(*LOCK) {
		smp_mb()
		LOAD l = *LOCK
		return l.locked
	}

The new barrier orders the store to the lock we are locking vs the load
of the other lock:

	CPU 0			CPU 1
	==================================================
	LOAD a = *A 		LOAD b = *B
	a.locked = true		b.locked = true
	STORE *A = a		STORE *B = b
	smp_mb()		smp_mb()
	LOAD b = *B		LOAD a = *A
	if b.locked # true	if a.locked # true
	# nothing		# nothing
	spin_unlock(*A)		spin_unlock(*B)

Although the above example is theoretical, there is code similar to this
example in sem_lock() in ipc/sem.c. This commit in addition to the next
commit appears to be a fix for crashes we are seeing in that code where
we believe this race happens in practice.

Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/benh/powerpc 2014-01-28T05:11:26+00:00 Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org 2014-01-28T05:11:26+00:00 1b17366d695c8ab03f98d0155357e97a427e1dce Pull powerpc updates from Ben Herrenschmidt: "So here's my next branch for powerpc. A bit late as I was on vacation last week. It's mostly the same stuff that was in next already, I just added two patches today which are the wiring up of lockref for powerpc, which for some reason fell through the cracks last time and is trivial. The highlights are, in addition to a bunch of bug fixes: - Reworked Machine Check handling on kernels running without a hypervisor (or acting as a hypervisor). Provides hooks to handle some errors in real mode such as TLB errors, handle SLB errors, etc... - Support for retrieving memory error information from the service processor on IBM servers running without a hypervisor and routing them to the memory poison infrastructure. - _PAGE_NUMA support on server processors - 32-bit BookE relocatable kernel support - FSL e6500 hardware tablewalk support - A bunch of new/revived board support - FSL e6500 deeper idle states and altivec powerdown support You'll notice a generic mm change here, it has been acked by the relevant authorities and is a pre-req for our _PAGE_NUMA support" * 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/benh/powerpc: (121 commits) powerpc: Implement arch_spin_is_locked() using arch_spin_value_unlocked() powerpc: Add support for the optimised lockref implementation powerpc/powernv: Call OPAL sync before kexec'ing powerpc/eeh: Escalate error on non-existing PE powerpc/eeh: Handle multiple EEH errors powerpc: Fix transactional FP/VMX/VSX unavailable handlers powerpc: Don't corrupt transactional state when using FP/VMX in kernel powerpc: Reclaim two unused thread_info flag bits powerpc: Fix races with irq_work Move precessing of MCE queued event out from syscall exit path. pseries/cpuidle: Remove redundant call to ppc64_runlatch_off() in cpu idle routines powerpc: Make add_system_ram_resources() __init powerpc: add SATA_MV to ppc64_defconfig powerpc/powernv: Increase candidate fw image size powerpc: Add debug checks to catch invalid cpu-to-node mappings powerpc: Fix the setup of CPU-to-Node mappings during CPU online powerpc/iommu: Don't detach device without IOMMU group powerpc/eeh: Hotplug improvement powerpc/eeh: Call opal_pci_reinit() on powernv for restoring config space powerpc/eeh: Add restore_config operation ... 
Pull powerpc updates from Ben Herrenschmidt:
 "So here's my next branch for powerpc.  A bit late as I was on vacation
  last week.  It's mostly the same stuff that was in next already, I
  just added two patches today which are the wiring up of lockref for
  powerpc, which for some reason fell through the cracks last time and
  is trivial.

  The highlights are, in addition to a bunch of bug fixes:

   - Reworked Machine Check handling on kernels running without a
     hypervisor (or acting as a hypervisor).  Provides hooks to handle
     some errors in real mode such as TLB errors, handle SLB errors,
     etc...

   - Support for retrieving memory error information from the service
     processor on IBM servers running without a hypervisor and routing
     them to the memory poison infrastructure.

   - _PAGE_NUMA support on server processors

   - 32-bit BookE relocatable kernel support

   - FSL e6500 hardware tablewalk support

   - A bunch of new/revived board support

   - FSL e6500 deeper idle states and altivec powerdown support

  You'll notice a generic mm change here, it has been acked by the
  relevant authorities and is a pre-req for our _PAGE_NUMA support"

* 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/benh/powerpc: (121 commits)
  powerpc: Implement arch_spin_is_locked() using arch_spin_value_unlocked()
  powerpc: Add support for the optimised lockref implementation
  powerpc/powernv: Call OPAL sync before kexec'ing
  powerpc/eeh: Escalate error on non-existing PE
  powerpc/eeh: Handle multiple EEH errors
  powerpc: Fix transactional FP/VMX/VSX unavailable handlers
  powerpc: Don't corrupt transactional state when using FP/VMX in kernel
  powerpc: Reclaim two unused thread_info flag bits
  powerpc: Fix races with irq_work
  Move precessing of MCE queued event out from syscall exit path.
  pseries/cpuidle: Remove redundant call to ppc64_runlatch_off() in cpu idle routines
  powerpc: Make add_system_ram_resources() __init
  powerpc: add SATA_MV to ppc64_defconfig
  powerpc/powernv: Increase candidate fw image size
  powerpc: Add debug checks to catch invalid cpu-to-node mappings
  powerpc: Fix the setup of CPU-to-Node mappings during CPU online
  powerpc/iommu: Don't detach device without IOMMU group
  powerpc/eeh: Hotplug improvement
  powerpc/eeh: Call opal_pci_reinit() on powernv for restoring config space
  powerpc/eeh: Add restore_config operation
  ...
powerpc: Implement arch_spin_is_locked() using arch_spin_value_unlocked() 2014-01-28T03:45:44+00:00 Michael Ellerman mpe@ellerman.id.au 2014-01-15T07:14:29+00:00 7179ba52889bef7e5e23f72908270e1ab2b7fc6f At a glance these are just the inverse of each other. The one subtlety is that arch_spin_value_unlocked() takes the lock by value, rather than as a pointer, which is important for the lockref code. On the other hand arch_spin_is_locked() doesn't really care, so implement it in terms of arch_spin_value_unlocked(). Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> 
At a glance these are just the inverse of each other. The one subtlety
is that arch_spin_value_unlocked() takes the lock by value, rather than
as a pointer, which is important for the lockref code.

On the other hand arch_spin_is_locked() doesn't really care, so
implement it in terms of arch_spin_value_unlocked().

Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
powerpc: Add support for the optimised lockref implementation 2014-01-28T03:45:43+00:00 Michael Ellerman mpe@ellerman.id.au 2014-01-15T07:14:28+00:00 3405d230b374b6923878b21b8d708d7db1f734ef This commit adds the architecture support required to enable the optimised implementation of lockrefs. That's as simple as defining arch_spin_value_unlocked() and selecting the Kconfig option. We also define cmpxchg64_relaxed(), because the lockref code does not need the cmpxchg to have barrier semantics. Using Linus' test case[1] on one system I see a 4x improvement for the basic enablement, and a further 1.3x for cmpxchg64_relaxed(), for a total of 5.3x vs the baseline. On another system I see more like 2x improvement. [1]: http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=137782380714721&w=4 Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> 
This commit adds the architecture support required to enable the
optimised implementation of lockrefs.

That's as simple as defining arch_spin_value_unlocked() and selecting
the Kconfig option.

We also define cmpxchg64_relaxed(), because the lockref code does not
need the cmpxchg to have barrier semantics.

Using Linus' test case[1] on one system I see a 4x improvement for the
basic enablement, and a further 1.3x for cmpxchg64_relaxed(), for a
total of 5.3x vs the baseline.

On another system I see more like 2x improvement.

[1]: http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=137782380714721&w=4

Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
powerpc: Full barrier for smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() 2013-12-16T10:36:18+00:00 Paul E. McKenney paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com 2013-12-11T21:59:11+00:00 919fc6e34831d1c2b58bfb5ae261dc3facc9b269 The powerpc lock acquisition sequence is as follows: lwarx; cmpwi; bne; stwcx.; lwsync; Lock release is as follows: lwsync; stw; If CPU 0 does a store (say, x=1) then a lock release, and CPU 1 does a lock acquisition then a load (say, r1=y), then there is no guarantee of a full memory barrier between the store to 'x' and the load from 'y'. To see this, suppose that CPUs 0 and 1 are hardware threads in the same core that share a store buffer, and that CPU 2 is in some other core, and that CPU 2 does the following: y = 1; sync; r2 = x; If 'x' and 'y' are both initially zero, then the lock acquisition and release sequences above can result in r1 and r2 both being equal to zero, which could not happen if unlock+lock was a full barrier. This commit therefore makes powerpc's smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() be a full barrier. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Acked-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Reviewed-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Cc: <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1386799151-2219-8-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> 
The powerpc lock acquisition sequence is as follows:

	lwarx; cmpwi; bne; stwcx.; lwsync;

Lock release is as follows:

	lwsync; stw;

If CPU 0 does a store (say, x=1) then a lock release, and CPU 1
does a lock acquisition then a load (say, r1=y), then there is
no guarantee of a full memory barrier between the store to 'x'
and the load from 'y'. To see this, suppose that CPUs 0 and 1
are hardware threads in the same core that share a store buffer,
and that CPU 2 is in some other core, and that CPU 2 does the
following:

	y = 1; sync; r2 = x;

If 'x' and 'y' are both initially zero, then the lock
acquisition and release sequences above can result in r1 and r2
both being equal to zero, which could not happen if unlock+lock
was a full barrier.

This commit therefore makes powerpc's
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() be a full barrier.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Reviewed-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Cc: <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1386799151-2219-8-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
powerpc: Make rwlocks endian safe 2013-08-14T05:33:40+00:00 Anton Blanchard anton@samba.org 2013-08-06T16:01:51+00:00 54bb7f4bda0ee49f39dc593c2d73fe6053a99dbb Our ppc64 spinlocks and rwlocks use a trick where a lock token and the paca index are placed in the lock with a single store. Since we are using two u16s they need adjusting for little endian. Signed-off-by: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> 
Our ppc64 spinlocks and rwlocks use a trick where a lock token and
the paca index are placed in the lock with a single store. Since we
are using two u16s they need adjusting for little endian.

Signed-off-by: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
powerpc: Stop using non-architected shared_proc field in lppaca 2013-08-14T01:50:26+00:00 Anton Blanchard anton@samba.org 2013-08-06T16:01:26+00:00 f13c13a005127b5dc5daaca190277a062d946e63 Although the shared_proc field in the lppaca works today, it is not architected. A shared processor partition will always have a non zero yield_count so use that instead. Create a wrapper so users don't have to know about the details. In order for older kernels to continue to work on KVM we need to set the shared_proc bit. While here, remove the ugly bitfield. Signed-off-by: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> 
Although the shared_proc field in the lppaca works today, it is
not architected. A shared processor partition will always have a non
zero yield_count so use that instead. Create a wrapper so users
don't have to know about the details.

In order for older kernels to continue to work on KVM we need
to set the shared_proc bit. While here, remove the ugly bitfield.

Signed-off-by: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
powerpc: Avoid debug_smp_processor_id() check in SHARED_PROCESSOR 2013-01-29T00:35:06+00:00 Li Zhong zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com 2013-01-24T21:51:13+00:00 94c95cfbfe784eca5f4b96955e41bda1318605bc Use local_paca directly in macro SHARED_PROCESSOR, as all processors have the same value for the field shared_proc, so we don't need care racy here. Reported-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Li Zhong <zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> 
Use local_paca directly in macro SHARED_PROCESSOR, as all processors
have the same value for the field shared_proc, so we don't need care
racy here.

Reported-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Li Zhong <zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
powerpc: Remove the remaining CONFIG_PPC_ISERIES pieces 2012-03-21T00:16:12+00:00 Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au 2012-03-15T18:20:13+00:00 1b041885ae1d9938440fc2cf6a444b70ec0a86c9 Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> 
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>