From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dxiao@broadcom.com (David Xiao)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:14:03 -0700
Subject: LDREX/STREX and pre-emption on SMP hardware
In-Reply-To: <1251128692.28977.17.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <4A8EB836.3000406@plxtech.com>
	<1250869355.10642.10.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com>
	<20090821155011.GB8583@shareable.org>
	<1250870319.10642.23.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com>
	<1250890146.29685.18.camel@david-laptop>
	<1251128692.28977.17.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com>
Message-ID: <1251134043.31975.23.camel@david-laptop>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 08:44 -0700, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 14:29 -0700, David Xiao wrote:
> > The DDI0406A ARM V7 Architecture Reference Manual (section A3.4.1) seems
> > to indicate that the exclusive monitor is tagging/matching the physical
> > memory address accessed by the LDREX/STREX instructions.
> > 
> > And in the same document (section A3.4.5), it seems to suggest that the
> > reason we need to do CLREX during the context switch is that because the
> > IsExclusiveLocal() implementation does not have to do memory
> > address/size check, but just the exclusive state check.
> 
> Yes, that's correct. And the reason we don't need this in interrupt
> handlers is that we would never call a STREX without a preceding LDREX
> or just a LDREX without a being followed by a STREX and interrupt
> handlers are in the worst case nested rather than freely preemptible.
> 

If an IRQ handler is registered with IRQF_DISABLED, then the handling of
this IRQ will not be preempted by any other IRQ handlers; however, if it
is not using that flag, which is the common case, that IRQ handler could
be interrupted/preempted by another different IRQ handler though.

Meanwhile, if we could assume that interrupt handlers are always using
the LDREX/CLREX in pairs, then the same thing could be assumed for any
other contexts in the system, kernel/user threads. Therefore, I do not
think that we can make that assumption.
  
Given that, I think we need to add the same CLREX for the switching of
the ISR context as well.

David