[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] WorkStruct: Implement generic UP cmpxchg() where an arch doesn't support it
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 07:58:20PM +0000, Russell King 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);


> 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.

And for those of us with only load-and-zero, that's simply:

#define load_locked(addr) spin_lock(hash(addr)), *addr
#define store_exclusive(addr, old, new) \
*addr = new, spin_unlock(hash(addr)), 0

which is also optimal for us.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-12-06 22:39    [W:0.566 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site