[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [BUG FIX] Make x86_32 uni-processor Atomic ops, Atomic
    If there is a driver which relies on locked operations to be atomic with
    respect to the I/O subsystem, it needs to use true locks, not LOCK_PREFIX.

    An interrupt cannot interrupt between two parts of a lockable
    instruction even if it isn't locked (there are non-atomic instructions
    in the x86 architecture, but they can never be locked.)

    The other thing that you might be seeing is that a locked operation may
    be slow enough to keep an otherwise-present race condition from being

    > That tells us nothing, since the CPU technical details are under NDA.

    Have you considered that you might be running into a CPU bug or design
    error? There was the out-of-order store bug on the Winchip that needed
    workarounds (CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE) that I don't think were ever well
    tested and might very well have bitrotted?

    > All that can be done in this case is report behavior differences from
    > the closest publicly described processor (Pentium-M).
    > For that purpose, I suggest that a single processor box, with other
    > hardware that makes memory access independent of the processor's
    > control using a processor older than P-4 is a potential test bed.
    > "Other hardware that makes memory access..." I previously termed:
    > "buss master DMA" - which is overly specific. It misleads people
    > into thinking I am seeing hardware control issues rather than
    > non-exclusive memory access.
    > My earlier comments about taking an interrupt between the memory read
    > and the memory write operations is from a different manual than the
    > one posted. A manual that only applies to processors older than
    > the ones supported by the Linux kernel.
    > Sorry, my bad, grabbed the wrong book, posted the correct link (SH).
    > Until one or more specific usages of the LOCK_PREFIX macro can be
    > demonstrated to be incorrect (at least for some of the processors
    > using this code) - -
    > Then making the posted change is a single point change that gives a
    > pair of builds (one with, one without) to compare the behavior of on
    > the test bed.
    > It is *not* the preferred change for a general release kernel, the
    > preferred change would be one that makes a specific rather than
    > general correction.
    > Perhaps only for some functions, perhaps only for some of the
    > processors that currently select this code.
    > The observation that executing an unnecessary 'lock' opcode in some
    > cases slows down the machine is not felt by myself to be significant
    > to duplicating my observations. Note: I have been wrong before.

    What makes you draw that conclusion, in particular? A lock prefix
    typically slows down the following instruction dramatically, on some
    processors by many hundreds of cycles.

    > This is as informative as I can make the message.
    > PS: *not* a single machine failure, tested on five machines, owned
    > by four different people, two brands, with different use histories.

    What do they have in common?


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-05-23 01:33    [W:0.022 / U:17.204 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site