Re: [PATCH] WorkStruct: Implement generic UP cmpxchg() where an archdoesn't support it

[Nick Piggin]

Russell King wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 12:18:52PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > Russell King wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 08:31:08PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> > > > > 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,
> > >
> > >
> > > Intentional - cmpxchg architectures don't generally have a load locked.
> >
> > Exactly, so it is wrong -- you can't implement that behaviour with
> > load + cmpxchg.
>
>
> I disagree.  I _have_ implemented the required behaviour.  I really
> don't understand your point saying that it is wrong.
>
>
> > > > and there can be interleaving writes
> > > > between the load and cmpxchg which do not cause the store_conditional
> > > > to fail.
> > >
> > >
> > > In which case the cmpxchg fails and we do the atomic operation again,
> > > in exactly the same way that we do the operation again if the 'sc'
> > > fails in the ll/sc case.
> >
> > Not if cmpxchg sees the same value, it won't fail, regardless of how
> > many writes have hit that memory address.
>
>
> Don't see anything wrong with that.  If that was a problem, atomic
> implementations using cmpxchg on x86 would be impossible.
>
> I think you're trying to implement ll/sc semantics on CPUs without
> ll/sc which is exactly not what I'm trying to do.  I'd argue that's
> impossible.

Yes, I did think that from reading your emails. It is not a problem
as such, but it is important to be clear on semantics.

> I'm trying to suggest a better implementation for atomic ops rather
> than just bowing to this x86-centric "cmpxchg is the best, everyone
> must implement it" mentality.

Even if ARM is able to handle any arbitrary C code between the
"load locked" and store conditional API, other architectures can not
by definition.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/