[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061206193641.GY3013@parisc-linux.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 12:36:41 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] WorkStruct: Implement generic UP cmpxchg() where an arch doesn't support it
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 11:29:42AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> > It's just been pointed out to me that the parisc one isn't safe.
> >
> > <dhowells> imagine variable X is set to 3
> > <dhowells> CPU A issues cmpxchg(&X, 3, 5)
> > <dhowells> you'd expect that to change X to 5
> > <dhowells> but what if CPU B assigns 6 to X between cmpxchg reading X
> > and it setting X?
>
> The same could happen with a regular cmpxchg. Cmpxchg changes it to 5 and
> then other cpu performs a store before the next instruction.
For someone who's advocating use of cmpxchg, it seems you don't
understand its semantics! In the scenario dhowells pointed out, X would
be left set to 5. X should have the value 6 under any legitimate
implementation:
CPU A CPU B
cmpxchg(3,5)
X = 6
CPU A CPU B
X = 6
cmpxhcg(3,5)
CPU A
cmpxchg(3,
X = 6
5)
Given that even yourself got confused about how to use it, perhaps it's
not a good idea to expose this primitive to most programmers anyway?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists