[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [7]   [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
Russell King wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 11:16:55AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:

> No. If you read what I said, you'll see that you can _cheaply_ use
> cmpxchg in a ll/sc based implementation. Take an atomic increment
> operation.
> do {
> old = load_locked(addr);
> } while (store_exclusive(old, old + 1, addr);
> On a cmpxchg, that "store_exclusive" (loosely) becomes your cmpxchg
> instruction, comparing the first arg, and if equal storing the second.
> The "load_locked" macro becomes a standard pointer deref. Ergo, x86
> becomes:
> do {
> load value
> manipulate it
> conditional store
> } while not stored
> On ll/sc, the load_locked() macro is the load locked instruction. The
> store_exclusive() macro is the exclusive store and it doesn't need to
> use the first parameter at all. Ergo, ARM becomes:
> do {
> ldrex r1, [r2]
> manipulate r1
> strex r0, r1, [r2]
> } while failed
> Notice that both are optimal.
> Now let's consider the cmpxchg case.
> do {
> val = *addr;
> } while (cmpxchg(val, val + 1, addr);
> The x86 case is _identical_ to the ll/sc based implementation. Absolutely
> entirely. No impact what so ever.
> Let's look at the ll/sc case. The cmpxchg code implemented on this has
> to reload the original value, compare it, if equal store the new value.
> So:
> do {
> val = *addr;
> (r2 = addr,
> ldrex r1, [r2]
> compare r1, r0
> strexeq r4, r3, [r2] (store exclusive if equal)
> } while store failed or comparecondition failed
> Note how the cmpxchg has _forced_ the ll/sc implementation to become
> more complex.
> So, let's recap.
> Implementing ll/sc based accessor macros allows both ll/sc _and_ cmpxchg
> architectures to produce optimal code.
> Implementing an cmpxchg based accessor macro allows cmpxchg architectures
> to produce optimal code and ll/sc non-optimal code.
> See my point?

Wrong. Your ll/sc implementation with cmpxchg is buggy. The cmpxchg
load_locked is not locked at all, and there can be interleaving writes
between the load and cmpxchg which do not cause the store_conditional
to fail.

It might be reasonable to implement this watered down version, but:
don't some architectures have restrictions on what instructions can
be issued between the ll and the sc?

But in general I agree with you, in that a higher level primitive is
preferable (eg. atomic_add_unless).

SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends

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: 2006-12-07 10:35    [W:0.103 / U:2.800 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site