[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061207165142.GA9006@linux-mips.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 16:51:42 +0000
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, torvalds@...l.org,
akpm@...l.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
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 Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 08:31:08PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Wrong. Your ll/sc implementation with cmpxchg is buggy. The cmpxchg
> load_locked is not locked at all, and there can be interleaving writes
> between the load and cmpxchg which do not cause the store_conditional
> to fail.
>
> It might be reasonable to implement this watered down version, but:
> don't some architectures have restrictions on what instructions can
> be issued between the ll and the sc?
On MIPS the restriction is no loads or stores or sync instructions between
ll/sc. Also there may be at most 2048 bytes between the address of the
ll and sc instructions. Which means ll/sc sequences should better be
written in assembler or gcc might do a bit too creative things ...
Ralf
-
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