On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 08:31:08PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Russell King wrote:
> >On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 11:16:55AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> >No. If you read what I said, you'll see that you can _cheaply_ use
> >cmpxchg in a ll/sc based implementation. Take an atomic increment
> >operation.
> >
> > do {
> > old = load_locked(addr);
> > } while (store_exclusive(old, old + 1, addr);
> >
> >On a cmpxchg, that "store_exclusive" (loosely) becomes your cmpxchg
> >instruction, comparing the first arg, and if equal storing the second.
> >The "load_locked" macro becomes a standard pointer deref. Ergo, x86
> >becomes:
> >
> > do {
> > load value
> > manipulate it
> > conditional store
> > } while not stored
> >
> >On ll/sc, the load_locked() macro is the load locked instruction. The
> >store_exclusive() macro is the exclusive store and it doesn't need to
> >use the first parameter at all. Ergo, ARM becomes:
> >
> > do {
> > ldrex r1, [r2]
> > manipulate r1
> > strex r0, r1, [r2]
> > } while failed
> >
> >Notice that both are optimal.
> >
> >Now let's consider the cmpxchg case.
> >
> > do {
> > val = *addr;
> > } while (cmpxchg(val, val + 1, addr);
> >
> >The x86 case is _identical_ to the ll/sc based implementation. Absolutely
> >entirely. No impact what so ever.
> >
> >Let's look at the ll/sc case. The cmpxchg code implemented on this has
> >to reload the original value, compare it, if equal store the new value.
> >So:
> >
> > do {
> > val = *addr;
> > (r2 = addr,
> > ldrex r1, [r2]
> > compare r1, r0
> > strexeq r4, r3, [r2] (store exclusive if equal)
> > } while store failed or comparecondition failed
> >
> >Note how the cmpxchg has _forced_ the ll/sc implementation to become
> >more complex.
> >
> >So, let's recap.
> >
> >Implementing ll/sc based accessor macros allows both ll/sc _and_ cmpxchg
> >architectures to produce optimal code.
> >
> >Implementing an cmpxchg based accessor macro allows cmpxchg architectures
> >to produce optimal code and ll/sc non-optimal code.
> >
> >See my point?
>
> Wrong. Your ll/sc implementation with cmpxchg is buggy. The cmpxchg
> load_locked is not locked at all,
Intentional - cmpxchg architectures don't generally have a load locked.
> and there can be interleaving writes
> between the load and cmpxchg which do not cause the store_conditional
> to fail.
In which case the cmpxchg fails and we do the atomic operation again,
in exactly the same way that we do the operation again if the 'sc'
fails in the ll/sc case.
I do not see any problem.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
-
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]
