![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > [ long details removed ] > > to sum it up: atomic_dec/inc_return() alone is not enough to implement > critical sections, on a number of architectures. atomic_xchg() seems to > have similar problems too. Yes. > the patch below adds the smp_mb() barriers to the generic headers, which > should now fulfill all the ordering requirements, on every architecture. > It only relies on one property of the atomic primitives: that they wont > get reordered with respect to themselves, so an atomic_inc_ret() and an > atomic_dec_ret() cannot switch place. > > Can you see any hole in this reasoning? No. The alternative is to just make the ordering requirements for "atomic_dec_return()" and "atomic_xchg()" be absolute. Say that they have to be full memory barriers, and push the problem into the low-level architecture. I _think_ your patch is the right approach, because most architectures are likely to do their own fast-paths for mutexes, and as such the generic ones are more of a template for how to do it, and hopefilly aren't that performance critical. Linus - 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: 2006-01-05 22:21 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||