Re: [PATCH v2] clarify usage expectations for cnt32_to_63()

Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-11-09T06:48:58Z

* Nicolas Pitre (nico@cam.org) wrote:
> Currently, all existing users of cnt32_to_63() are fine since the CPU
> architectures where it is used don't do read access reordering, and user
> mode preemption is disabled already. It is nevertheless a good idea to
> better elaborate usage requirements wrt preemption, and use an explicit
> memory barrier on SMP to avoid different CPUs accessing the counter
> value in the wrong order. On UP a simple compiler barrier is
> sufficient.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
> ---
>
...
> @@ -68,9 +77,10 @@ union cnt32_to_63 {
> */
> #define cnt32_to_63(cnt_lo) \
> ({ \
> - static volatile u32 __m_cnt_hi; \
> + static u32 __m_cnt_hi; \

It's important to get the smp_rmb() here, which this patch provides, so
consider this patch to be acked-by me. The added documentation is needed
too.

But I also think that declaring the static u32 __m_cnt_hi here is
counter-intuitive for developers who wish to use it.

I'd recommend letting the declaration be done outside of cnt32_to_63 so
the same variable can be passed as parameter to more than one execution
site.

Mathieu

> union cnt32_to_63 __x; \
> __x.hi = __m_cnt_hi; \
> + smp_rmb(); \
> __x.lo = (cnt_lo); \
> if (unlikely((s32)(__x.hi ^ __x.lo) < 0)) \
> __m_cnt_hi = __x.hi = (__x.hi ^ 0x80000000) + (__x.hi >> 31); \

--
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68