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
next prev 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).