From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [IPv6:2001:1868:205::9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AF5F1A0802 for ; Sat, 6 Sep 2014 05:52:51 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 21:52:34 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: bit fields && data tearing Message-ID: <20140905195234.GT4783@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <54079B70.4050200@hurleysoftware.com> <1409785893.30640.118.camel@pasglop> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D17487172@AcuExch.aculab.com> <1409824374.4246.62.camel@pasglop> <5408E458.3@zytor.com> <54090AF4.7060406@hurleysoftware.com> <54091B30.2090509@zytor.com> <20140905081648.GB5281@omega> <20140905180950.GU5001@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140905183109.GA5497@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20140905183109.GA5497@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Jakub Jelinek , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , Tony Luck , "linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org" , Peter Hurley , Michael Cree , linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , David Laight , Paul Mackerras , "H. Peter Anvin" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , Miroslav Franc , Richard Henderson List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 11:31:09AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > compiler: Allow 1- and 2-byte smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release() > > CPUs without single-byte and double-byte loads and stores place some > "interesting" requirements on concurrent code. For example (adapted > from Peter Hurley's test code), suppose we have the following structure: > > struct foo { > spinlock_t lock1; > spinlock_t lock2; > char a; /* Protected by lock1. */ > char b; /* Protected by lock2. */ > }; > struct foo *foop; > > Of course, it is common (and good) practice to place data protected > by different locks in separate cache lines. However, if the locks are > rarely acquired (for example, only in rare error cases), and there are > a great many instances of the data structure, then memory footprint can > trump false-sharing concerns, so that it can be better to place them in > the same cache cache line as above. > > But if the CPU does not support single-byte loads and stores, a store > to foop->a will do a non-atomic read-modify-write operation on foop->b, > which will come as a nasty surprise to someone holding foop->lock2. So we > now require CPUs to support single-byte and double-byte loads and stores. > Therefore, this commit adjusts the definition of __native_word() to allow > these sizes to be used by smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release(). So does this patch depends on a patch that removes pre EV56 alpha support? I'm all for removing that, but I need to see the patch merged before we can do this.