lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] WorkStruct: Implement generic UP cmpxchg() where an arch doesn't support it


On Fri, 8 Dec 2006, Russell King wrote:
>>
> The only instructions which affect the exclusive access state are the
> exclusive access instructions themselves.

Not according to the docs I found.

The ARM1136 manual explicitly states that any attempt to modify that
address clears the tag (for shared memory regions, by _any_ CPU, and for
nonshared regions by _that_ CPU).

And btw, that _has_ to be true, because otherwise the whole ldrex/strex
sequence would be totally unusable as a way to do atomic bit operations on
UP in the presense of interrupts (well, you could have a clrex instruction
in the interrupt handler, but as far as I know you don't, so that seems to
be a moot point - you only seem to do it in __switch_to).

In other words, I _really_ think you're wrong.

So the very code sequence you quote MUST NOT WORK the way you claim it
does. And not only that, since the granularity of the mark is not just for
the bytes in question, but potentially apparently up to 128 bytes, any
store even _close_ to the memory you had xclusive access to will break the
exclusive access.

Really, Russell. Your stance makes no sense. It doesn't make any sense
from a microarchitectural standpoint (it's not how you'd normally
implement these things), but it ALSO makes no sense from the way you
already use those instructions (as a way to protect against other
processors - including your own - touching that word).

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: 2009-11-18 23:46    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans