On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
>
> The question raised because the situation we observe on AMD processors is
> really strange and makes us believe that something is wrong in kerne/in
> processor or our minds. Below goes an explanation:
Your code is buggy.
> The whole story started when we wrote the following code:
>
> void XXX(void)
> {
> /* ints disabled */
> restart:
> spin_lock(&lock);
> do_something();
> if (!flag)
> need_restart = 1;
> spin_unlock(&lock);
> if (need_restart)
> goto restart; <<<< LOOPS 4EVER ON AMD!!!
> }
>
> void YYY(void)
> {
> spin_lock(&lock); <<<< SPINS 4EVER ON AMD!!!
> flag = 1;
> spin_unlock(&lock);
> }
If you want to notify another CPU that you want the spinlock, then you
need to set the "flag" variable _outside_ of the spinlock.
Spinlocks are not fair, not by a long shot. They never have been, and they
never will. Fairness would be extremely expensive indeed.
> Other observations:
> - This does not happen on Intel processors, more over on Intel 2 CPUs take
> locks in a fair manner, exactly one by one!
It depends entirely on the cache coherency protocol. I bet you'd find
differences even within Intel CPU's.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
