linux-arch.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 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 19:54           ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-06 19:56             ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-06 19:43         ` David Howells
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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).