[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090525215754.GF3667@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 22:57:54 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: Broken ARM (and powerpc ?) futex wrt memory barriers
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 05:45:33PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> I think we also have to deal with futexes. See
> arch/arm/include/asm/futex.h :
>
> 1 -
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>
> #include <asm-generic/futex.h>
>
> #else /* !SMP, we can work around lack of atomic ops by disabling
> preemption */
>
> (arm-specific code here, seems to deal with futexes)
>
> #endif
>
> -> is it just me or this ifdef condition is the exact opposite of what
> it should be ? I thought those generic futexes were for UP-only
> systems...
No, it is correct. Look deeper - the generic stuff implements a whole
load of futex stuff as returning -ENOSYS - it's not implemented.
What you see in ARM is the UP code implementing the set/add/or/andn/xor
cmpxchg operations. However, this code is most certainly not SMP safe
(and I couldn't persuade the folk writing it to come up with a SMP
version.) So, on ARM futex is supported on UP systems, but not SMP
systems until someone gets around to fixing this.
--
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