Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation

[Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com>]

On Dec 16, 2005, at 10:24, Linh Dang wrote:
> Well, it may be true for ARM but for ppc (i dunno what exactly llsc  
> means but someone in the thread put ppc in llsc group)  it's:
>
>    loop:
>         load-reserve foo => old
>         new = old * N
>         store-conditional new => foo
>         if failed goto loop

LLSC == Load-Locked/Store-Conditional.  It's a slightly different  
name for your Load-Reserve/Store-Conditional

You still miss his point.  That is _GOOD_ code.  Russell's point is  
that if somebody does this in generic code:

do {
	old = atomic_read(&foo);
	new = old * 2;
} while (atomic_cmpxchg(&foo, old, new) != old);

On PPC or ARM or another LLSC architecture it does not end up looking  
like the good code, it looks like this (which is clearly inefficient):

> > And for architectures with llsc, this becomes:
> >
> > loop:	load foo => old
> > 	new = old * N
> > loop2:	load locked foo => ret
> > 	compare ret & old
> > 	if equal store conditional new in foo
> > 		if store failed because we lost the lock, goto loop2
> > 	compare ret & old
> > 	if not equal goto loop

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCM/CS/IT/E/U d- s++: a18 C++++>$ ULBX*++++(+++)>$ P++++(+++)>$ L++++ 
(+++)>$ !E- W+++(++) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+ PGP 
+ t+(+++) 5 X R? !tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+(++) D+++ G e>++++$ h*(+)>++$ r 
%(--)  !y?-(--)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/