From: jamie@shareable.org (Jamie Lokier)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [Kgdb-bugreport] [PATCH] ARM: change definition of cpu_relax() for ARM11MPCore
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 22:03:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100415210322.GB26494@shareable.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100415173609.GA29752@mvista.com>
George G. Davis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 06:32:47PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 06:23:58PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > This patch changes the definition of cpu_relax() to smp_mb() for ARMv6 cores,
> > > forcing the write buffer to drain while inside a polling loop on an SMP system.
> > > If the Kernel is not compiled for SMP support, this will expand to a barrier()
> > > as before.
>
> If I've followed these threads [1][2] correctly, this ARM11 MPCore issue
> was discovered while running the "KGDB: internal test suite" (KGDB_TESTS)
> and that problem is resolved via "kgdb: use atomic_inc and atomic_dec
> instead of atomic_set" [3]. If so, isn't the original ARM11 MPCore KGDB
> cpu_relax() issue just a red herring? Shouldn't any polling loops
> which depend on specific (hardware) write/read order implement appropriate
> barriers rather than rely on cpu_relax() to guarantee order?
Note that the need to force the write buffer to drain is _not_ an
ordering issue. It's a buffer draining issue. :-)
I'm not sure if Linux smp_wmb() guarantees to ensure prior writes will
be visible to other CPUs in a short time, or if it only guarantees
write order.
-- Jamie
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-15 21:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-12 17:23 [PATCH] ARM: change definition of cpu_relax() for ARM11MPCore Will Deacon
2010-04-12 17:32 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-04-15 17:36 ` [Kgdb-bugreport] " George G. Davis
2010-04-15 21:03 ` Jamie Lokier [this message]
2010-04-16 13:54 ` Will Deacon
2010-04-19 14:39 ` Will Deacon
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-03-09 16:06 Will Deacon
2010-03-09 16:22 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-03-09 16:35 ` Will Deacon
2010-03-09 16:49 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-03-09 17:59 ` Will Deacon
2010-03-10 22:06 ` [Kgdb-bugreport] " Jason Wessel
2010-03-11 2:47 ` DDD
2010-03-11 13:53 ` Will Deacon
2010-03-11 13:29 ` Will Deacon
2010-03-11 14:51 ` Will Deacon
2010-03-16 17:26 ` Will Deacon
2010-03-16 18:52 ` Jason Wessel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100415210322.GB26494@shareable.org \
--to=jamie@shareable.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.