lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 7/7] microblaze: Do atomic operations by using exclusive ops
From
Date
On 12. 02. 20 16:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 04:42:29PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>> From: Stefan Asserhall load and store <stefan.asserhall@xilinx.com>
>>
>> Implement SMP aware atomic operations.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Asserhall <stefan.asserhall@xilinx.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>
>> ---
>>
>> arch/microblaze/include/asm/atomic.h | 265 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 253 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/microblaze/include/asm/atomic.h b/arch/microblaze/include/asm/atomic.h
>> index 41e9aff23a62..522d704fad63 100644
>> --- a/arch/microblaze/include/asm/atomic.h
>> +++ b/arch/microblaze/include/asm/atomic.h
>> @@ -1,28 +1,269 @@
>> /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
>> +/*
>> + * Copyright (C) 2013-2020 Xilinx, Inc.
>> + */
>> +
>> #ifndef _ASM_MICROBLAZE_ATOMIC_H
>> #define _ASM_MICROBLAZE_ATOMIC_H
>>
>> +#include <linux/types.h>
>> #include <asm/cmpxchg.h>
>> -#include <asm-generic/atomic.h>
>> -#include <asm-generic/atomic64.h>
>> +
>> +#define ATOMIC_INIT(i) { (i) }
>> +
>> +#define atomic_read(v) READ_ONCE((v)->counter)
>> +
>> +static inline void atomic_set(atomic_t *v, int i)
>> +{
>> + int result, tmp;
>> +
>> + __asm__ __volatile__ (
>> + /* load conditional address in %2 to %0 */
>> + "1: lwx %0, %2, r0;\n"
>> + /* attempt store */
>> + " swx %3, %2, r0;\n"
>> + /* checking msr carry flag */
>> + " addic %1, r0, 0;\n"
>> + /* store failed (MSR[C] set)? try again */
>> + " bnei %1, 1b;\n"
>> + /* Outputs: result value */
>> + : "=&r" (result), "=&r" (tmp)
>> + /* Inputs: counter address */
>> + : "r" (&v->counter), "r" (i)
>> + : "cc", "memory"
>> + );
>> +}
>> +#define atomic_set atomic_set
>
> Uuuuhh.. *what* ?!?
>
> Are you telling me your LL/SC implementation is so bugger that
> atomic_set() being a WRITE_ONCE() does not in fact work?

Just keep in your mind that this code was written long time ago and
there could be a lot of things/technique used at that time by IIRC
powerpc and I hope that review process will fix these things and I
really appreciation your comments.

Stefan is the right person to say if we really need to use exclusive
loads/stores instructions or use what I see in include/linux/compiler.h.

Please correct me if I am wrong.
WRITE_ONCE is __write_once_size which is normal write in C which I
expect will be converted in asm to non exclusive writes. And barrier is
called only for cases above 8bytes.

READ_ONCE is normal read follow by barrier all the time.

Also is there any testsuite I should run to verify all these atomics
operations? That would really help but I haven't seen any tool (but also
didn't try hard to find it out).

Thanks,
Michal





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-13 09:07    [W:0.101 / U:10.468 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site