lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 3/5] powerpc: atomic: implement atomic{,64}_{add,sub}_return_* variants
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 01:11:56PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 02:01:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > The scenario is:
> >
> > CPU0 CPU1
> >
> > unlock(x)
> > smp_store_release(&x->lock, 0);
> >
> > unlock(y)
> > smp_store_release(&next->lock, 1); /* next == &y */
> >
> > lock(y)
> > while (!(smp_load_acquire(&y->lock))
> > cpu_relax();
> >
> >
> > Where the lock does _NOT_ issue a store to acquire the lock at all. Now
> > I don't think any of our current primitives manage this, so we should be
> > good, but it might just be possible.
>
> So with a bit more through this seems fundamentally impossible, you
> always needs some stores in a lock() implementation, the above for
> instance needs to queue itself, otherwise CPU0 will not be able to find
> it etc..

Which brings us back round to separating LOCK/UNLOCK from ACQUIRE/RELEASE.

If we say that UNLOCK(foo) -> LOCK(bar) is ordered but RELEASE(baz) ->
ACQUIRE(boz) is only ordered by smp_mb__release_acquire(), then I think
we're in a position where we can at least build arbitrary locks portably
out of ACQUIRE/RELEASE operations, even though I don't see any users of
that macro in the imminent future.

I'll have a crack at some documentation.

Will


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-14 18:01    [W:0.084 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site