Re: MIPS atomic memory operations (A.K.A PR 33479).

[Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>]

David Daney wrote:
> Richard,
>
> There seems to be a small problem with the MIPS atomic memory operations 
> patch I recently committed 
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-08/msg01290.html), in that on a 
> dual CPU machine it does not quite work.
>
> You can look at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33479#c3 for 
> more information.
>
> Here is the code in question (from mips.h):
>
> #define MIPS_COMPARE_AND_SWAP(SUFFIX, OP)	\
>   "%(%<%[sync\n"				\

This sync is for SB-1 implied by ll, but other MIPS systems may
need it.

>   "1:\tll" SUFFIX "\t%0,%1\n"			\
>   "\tbne\t%0,%2,2f\n"				\
>   "\t" OP "\t%@,%3\n"				\
>   "\tsc" SUFFIX "\t%@,%1\n"			\
>   "\tbeq\t%@,%.,1b\n"				\
>   "\tnop\n"					\

The SB-1 needs a "sync" here.

>   "2:%]%>%)"
>
>
>
> I guess my basic question is:  Should MIPS_COMPARE_AND_SWAP have a 'sync' 
> after the 'sc'?  I would have thought that 'sc' made the write visible to 
> all CPUs, but on the SB1 it appears not to be the case.
>
> If we do need to add another 'sync' should it go in the delay slot of the 
> branch?  I would say yes because we would expect the branch to rarely 
> taken.

But it would make things a lot worse for the contended case, which is
the interesting one for performance.


Thiemo