All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] WorkStruct: Implement generic UP cmpxchg() where an arch doesn't support it
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 09:33:10 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4579E826.80406@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061208085634.GA25751@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>

Russell King wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 12:18:52PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
>>Russell King wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 08:31:08PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>
>>>>>Implementing ll/sc based accessor macros allows both ll/sc _and_ cmpxchg
>>>>>architectures to produce optimal code.
>>>>>
>>>>>Implementing an cmpxchg based accessor macro allows cmpxchg architectures
>>>>>to produce optimal code and ll/sc non-optimal code.
>>>>>
>>>>>See my point?
>>>>
>>>>Wrong. Your ll/sc implementation with cmpxchg is buggy. The cmpxchg
>>>>load_locked is not locked at all,
>>>
>>>
>>>Intentional - cmpxchg architectures don't generally have a load locked.
>>
>>Exactly, so it is wrong -- you can't implement that behaviour with
>>load + cmpxchg.
> 
> 
> I disagree.  I _have_ implemented the required behaviour.  I really
> don't understand your point saying that it is wrong.
> 
> 
>>>>and there can be interleaving writes
>>>>between the load and cmpxchg which do not cause the store_conditional
>>>>to fail.
>>>
>>>
>>>In which case the cmpxchg fails and we do the atomic operation again,
>>>in exactly the same way that we do the operation again if the 'sc'
>>>fails in the ll/sc case.
>>
>>Not if cmpxchg sees the same value, it won't fail, regardless of how
>>many writes have hit that memory address.
> 
> 
> Don't see anything wrong with that.  If that was a problem, atomic
> implementations using cmpxchg on x86 would be impossible.
> 
> I think you're trying to implement ll/sc semantics on CPUs without
> ll/sc which is exactly not what I'm trying to do.  I'd argue that's
> impossible.

Yes, I did think that from reading your emails. It is not a problem
as such, but it is important to be clear on semantics.

> I'm trying to suggest a better implementation for atomic ops rather
> than just bowing to this x86-centric "cmpxchg is the best, everyone
> must implement it" mentality.

Even if ARM is able to handle any arbitrary C code between the
"load locked" and store conditional API, other architectures can not
by definition.

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 

  parent reply	other threads:[~2006-12-08 22:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 76+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-12-06 16:43 [PATCH] WorkStruct: Implement generic UP cmpxchg() where an arch doesn't support it David Howells
2006-12-06 17:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-06 18:56 ` Christoph Lameter
2006-12-06 19:00   ` Russell King
2006-12-06 19:16     ` Christoph Lameter
2006-12-06 19:28       ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-06 19:58       ` Russell King
2006-12-06 21:36         ` Matthew Wilcox
2006-12-06 21:52           ` Christoph Lameter
2006-12-06 22:05             ` Matthew Wilcox
2006-12-06 22:15               ` Christoph Lameter
2006-12-07  0:37               ` Roman Zippel
2006-12-07  0:54                 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-07  1:05                   ` Roman Zippel
2006-12-07  1:18                     ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-07  1:24                       ` Roman Zippel
2006-12-07  1:36                         ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-07  1:44                           ` Matthew Wilcox
2006-12-07  2:09                             ` Douglas McNaught
2006-12-07  1:52                           ` Roman Zippel
2006-12-07  9:23                   ` Nick Piggin
2006-12-06 22:38             ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-07  9:31         ` Nick Piggin
2006-12-07 13:20           ` Ivan Kokshaysky
2006-12-07 15:03           ` Russell King
2006-12-08  1:18             ` Nick Piggin
2006-12-08  8:56               ` Russell King
2006-12-08 16:06                 ` Christoph Lameter
2006-12-08 16:31                   ` Russell King
2006-12-08 16:43                     ` Christoph Lameter
2006-12-08 16:47                       ` Russell King
2006-12-08 16:53                         ` Christoph Lameter
2006-12-08 16:58                           ` Russell King
2006-12-08 16:56                   ` David Howells
2006-12-08 17:06                     ` Christoph Lameter
2006-12-08 17:18                       ` Russell King
2006-12-08 17:23                         ` Christoph Lameter
2006-12-08 19:15                           ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-08 19:31                             ` Russell King
2006-12-08 19:37                               ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-08 19:43                                 ` Russell King
2006-12-08 20:01                               ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-08 18:46                     ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-08 19:04                       ` Russell King
2006-12-08 19:35                         ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-08 19:59                           ` Russell King
2006-12-08 20:34                             ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-11 11:04                         ` David Howells
2006-12-08 22:33                 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2006-12-07 15:36           ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-07 16:51           ` Ralf Baechle
2006-12-07  0:46       ` Ralf Baechle
2006-12-06 19:05   ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-06 19:08     ` Al Viro
2006-12-06 19:25       ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-06 19:29         ` Matthew Wilcox
2006-12-06 19:43           ` David Howells
2006-12-06 19:54           ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-06 19:56             ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-07  1:09       ` David Miller
2006-12-06 19:26     ` Matthew Wilcox
2006-12-06 19:29       ` Christoph Lameter
2006-12-06 19:36         ` Matthew Wilcox
2006-12-06 19:47           ` Christoph Lameter
2006-12-06 19:50             ` Matthew Wilcox
2006-12-06 20:11               ` Christoph Lameter
2006-12-06 20:17                 ` Matthew Wilcox
2006-12-06 19:34       ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-06 19:41         ` Matthew Wilcox
2006-12-06 19:45         ` David Howells
2006-12-06 20:00     ` Russell King
2006-12-07 15:06     ` Russell King
2006-12-08 15:32       ` Russell King
2006-12-06 19:12 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2006-12-06 19:47   ` David Howells
2006-12-06 20:09     ` Lennert Buytenhek

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=4579E826.80406@yahoo.com.au \
    --to=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=clameter@sgi.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=torvalds@osdl.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.