lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH v3]: documentation,atomic: Add new documents
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 03:18:18PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 06:42:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 09:14:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > So if ARM really needs the litmus test with smp_rmb() to be allowed,
> > > we need to adjust the Linux-kernel memory model appropriately. Which
> > > means that one of us needs to reach out to the usual suspects. Would
> > > you like to do that, or would you like me to?
> >
> > I'm really sad ARM8.1 LSE breaks this stuff.. It is rather counter
> > intuitive (then again, we _are_ talking barriers).
>
> No argument.
>
> Then again, when we said that the Linux kernel memory model would
> have a non-trivial rate of change, we weren't joking.
>
> Will, is this the official description?
>
> http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.ddi0557a.b/index.html
>
> If so, is B6.1 what we should be looking at?

Sorry it's so tricky to find. The architecture document is here:

https://static.docs.arm.com/ddi0487/b/DDI0487B_a_armv8_arm.pdf

and in section C3.2.13 ("Atomic memory operations") it states:

| The ST<OP> instructions are not regarded as doing a read for the purpose
| of a DMB LD barrier.

Will

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-02 10:47    [W:0.076 / U:2.132 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site