Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 7 Jan 2016 00:14:05 +0200 | From | "Michael S. Tsirkin" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 31/32] sh: support a 2-byte smp_store_mb |
| |
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:23:50PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote: > On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 03:32:18PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:52:17PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > Peter, what do you think? How about I leave this patch as is for now? > > > > > > > > No, and I object to removing the single byte implementation too. Either > > > > remove the full arch or fix xchg() to conform. xchg() should work on all > > > > native word sizes, for SH that would be 1,2 and 4 bytes. > > > > > > Rick, maybe you could explain how is current 1 byte xchg on llsc wrong? > > > > It doesn't seem to preserve the 3 other bytes in the word. > > > > > It does use 4 byte accesses but IIUC that is all that exists on > > > this architecture. > > > > Right, that's not a problem, look at arch/alpha/include/asm/xchg.h for > > example. A store to another portion of the word should make the > > store-conditional fail and we'll retry the loop. > > > > The short versions should however preserve the other bytes in the word. > > Indeed. Also, accesses must be aligned, so the asm needs to round down > to an aligned address and perform a correct read-modify-write on it, > placing the new byte in the correct offset in the word. > > Alternatively (my preference) this logic can be impemented in C as a > wrapper around the 32-bit cmpxchg. I think this is less error-prone > and it can be shared between the multiple sh cmpxchg back-ends, > including the new cas.l one we need for J2.
Sounds much more reasonable.
> > SH's cmpxchg() is equally incomplete and does not provide 1 and 2 byte > > versions. > > > > In any case, I'm all for rm -rf arch/sh/, one less arch to worry about > > is always good, but ISTR some people wanting to resurrect SH: > > > > http://old.lwn.net/Articles/647636/ > > > > Rob, Jeff, Sato-san, might I suggest you send a MAINTAINERS patch and > > take up an active interest in SH lest someone 'accidentally' nukes it? > > We're in the process of preparing such a proposal right now. That > current intent is that Sato-san and I will co-maintain arch/sh. We'll > include more details about motivation, proposed development direction, > existing work to be merged, etc. in that proposal. > > Rich
| |