lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 24 Jul 2007 18:31:32 +1000
FromNick Piggin <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH 8/8] i386: bitops: smp_mb__{before, after}_clear_bit() definitions
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Satyam Sharma wrote:> >>Consider this (the above two functions exist only for clear_bit(),
>>the atomic variant, as you already know), the _only_ memory reference
>>we care about is that of the address of the passed bit-string:
>>>>(1) The compiler must not optimize / elid it (i.e. we need to disallow
>>    compiler optimization for that reference) -- but we've already taken
>>    care of that with the __asm__ __volatile__ and the constraints on
>>    the memory "addr" operand there, and,
>>(2) For the i386, it also includes an implicit memory (CPU) barrier
>>    already.
>>
>>So I /think/ it makes sense to let the compiler optimize _other_ memory
>>references across the call to clear_bit(). There's a difference. I think
>>we'd be safe even if we do this, because the synchronization in callers
>>must be based upon the _passed bit-string_, otherwise _they_ are the
>>ones who're buggy.
>>
>>[ However, elsewhere Jeremy Fitzhardinge mentioned the case of
>>  some callers, for instance, doing a memset() on an alias of
>>  the same bit-string. But again, I think that is dodgy/buggy/
>>  extremely border-line usage on the caller's side itself ...
>>  *unless* the caller is doing that inside a higher-level lock
>>  anyway, in which case he wouldn't be needing to use the
>>  locked variants either ... ]
>> > > > You miss my point.  If you have:> > 	memset(&my_bitmask, 0, sizeof(my_bitmask));
> 	set_bit(my_bitmask, 44);
> 
> Then unless the set_bit has a constraint argument which covers the whole
> of the (multiword) bitmask, the compiler may see fit to interleave the
> memset writes with the set_bit in bad ways.  In other words, plain "+m"
> (*(long *)ptr) won't cut it.  You'd need "+m" (my_bitmask), I think.

That's a valid point, and looks like it is a bug in the existing i386
macros, doesn't it? We should be clobbering addr + BITOP_WORD(nr).

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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: 2007-07-24 10:35    [from the cache]
©2003-2008