![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 11:54:48PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Robert Love wrote: > > Thinking about it, you are probably going to be doing this: > > > > ++counter[smp_processor_id()]; > > > > and that is not preempt-safe since the whole operation certainly is not > > atomic. The current CPU could change between calculating it and > > referencing the array. > > yup. It'd probably work - the compiler should calculate the address and > do a non-buslocked but IRQ-atomic increment on it. But no way can we > rely on that happening. > > > But, that wouldn't matter as long as you only > > cared about the sum of the counters. > > If the compiler produced code equivalent to > > counter[smp_processor_id()] = counter[smp_processor_id()] + 1; > > then the counter would get trashed - a context switch could cause CPUB > to write CPUA's counter (+1) onto CPUB's counter. It's quite possibly > illegal for the compiler to evaluate the array subscript twice in this > manner. Dunno. > > If the compiler produced code equivalent to: > > const int cpu = smp_processor_id(); > counter[cpu] = counter[cpu] + 1; > > (which is much more likely) then a context switch would result > in CPUB writing CPUA's updated counter onto CPUA's counter. Which > will work a lot more often, until CPUA happens to be updating its > counter at the same time. So without preemption in the kernel maybe 4 instructions: calculate cpuid, inc; all local no cache ping code is easy to read and understand. with preemption in the kernel a design problem. a slippery synchronization issue that involves the characteristic preemption error - code that works most of the time. -- --------------------------------------------------------- Victor Yodaiken Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company. www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:20 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||