From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40411)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <fred.konrad@greensocs.com>) id 1Z2ayp-0005OL-WB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 04:03:29 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <fred.konrad@greensocs.com>) id 1Z2ayk-0005Io-65
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 04:03:23 -0400
Received: from greensocs.com ([193.104.36.180]:51183)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <fred.konrad@greensocs.com>) id 1Z2ayj-0005IZ-QQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 04:03:18 -0400
Message-ID: <5577EF40.2010207@greensocs.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:03:12 +0200
From: Frederic Konrad <fred.konrad@greensocs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1433514678-4464-1-git-send-email-fred.konrad@greensocs.com>	<871thl8ctj.fsf@linaro.org>
	<87pp556l5d.fsf@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <87pp556l5d.fsf@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] Use atomic cmpxchg to atomically check
 the exclusive value in a STREX
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: =?UTF-8?B?QWxleCBCZW5uw6ll?= <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Cc: mttcg@listserver.greensocs.com, peter.maydell@linaro.org, mark.burton@greensocs.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, agraf@suse.de, guillaume.delbergue@greensocs.com, pbonzini@redhat.com

On 09/06/2015 15:55, Alex Benn=C3=A9e wrote:
> Alex Benn=C3=A9e <alex.bennee@linaro.org> writes:
>
>> fred.konrad@greensocs.com writes:
>>
>>> From: KONRAD Frederic <fred.konrad@greensocs.com>
>>>
>>> This mechanism replaces the existing load/store exclusive mechanism w=
hich seems
>>> to be broken for multithread.
>>> It follows the intention of the existing mechanism and stores the tar=
get address
>>> and data values during a load operation and checks that they remain u=
nchanged
>>> before a store.
>>>
>>> In common with the older approach, this provides weaker semantics tha=
n required
>>> in that it could be that a different processor writes the same value =
as a
>>> non-exclusive write, however in practise this seems to be irrelevant.
> <snip>
>>>  =20
>>> +/* Protect cpu_exclusive_* variable .*/
>>> +__thread bool cpu_have_exclusive_lock;
>>> +QemuMutex cpu_exclusive_lock;
>>> +
>>> +inline void arm_exclusive_lock(void)
>>> +{
>>> +    if (!cpu_have_exclusive_lock) {
>>> +        qemu_mutex_lock(&cpu_exclusive_lock);
>>> +        cpu_have_exclusive_lock =3D true;
>>> +    }
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +inline void arm_exclusive_unlock(void)
>>> +{
>>> +    if (cpu_have_exclusive_lock) {
>>> +        cpu_have_exclusive_lock =3D false;
>>> +        qemu_mutex_unlock(&cpu_exclusive_lock);
>>> +    }
>>> +}
>> I don't quite follow. If these locks are mean to be protecting access =
to
>> variables then how do they do that? The lock won't block if another
>> thread is currently messing with the protected values.
> Having re-read after coffee I'm still wondering why we need the
> per-thread bool? All the lock/unlock pairs are for critical sections so
> don't we just want to serialise on the qemu_mutex_lock(), what do the
> flags add apart from allowing you to next locks that shouldn't happen?
>
>
You are probably right, this might be a rest of the old approach.
There were branches so we needed to allow next locks.

Thanks,
Fred