[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, 6 Dec 2006, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Given parisc's paucity of atomic operations (load-and-zero-32bit and
> load-and-zero-64bit), cmpxchg() is impossible to implement safely.
> There has to be something we can hook to exclude another processor
> modifying the variable. I'm OK with using atomic_cmpxchg(); we have
> atomic_set locked against it.

How do you to the atomic bitops?

Also, I don't see quite why you think "cmpxchg()" and "atomic_cmpxchg()"
would be different. ANY cmpxchg() needs to be atomic - if it's not,
there's no point to the operation at all, since you'd just write it as

if (*p == x)
*p = y;

instead, and not use cmpxchg().

So yes, architectures without native support (where "native" includes
load-locked + store-conditional) always need to

- on UP, just disable interrupts
- on SMP, use a spinlock (with interrupts disabled), and share that
spinlock with all the other atomic ops (bitops at a minimum - the
"atomic_t" operations have traditionally been in another "locking
space" because of sparc32 historic braindamage, but I'd suggest
sharing the same spinlock between them all).

And yeah, it sucks. You _can_ (if you really want to) make the spinlock be
hashed based on the address of the atomic data structure. That at least
allows you to do _multiple_ spinlocks, but let's face it, your real
problem is _likely_ going to be cacheline bouncing, not contention, and
then using a hashed lock won't be likely to buy you all that much.

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: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.118 / U:8.464 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site