[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090527155917.GB6729@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 08:59:17 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Broken ARM atomic ops wrt memory barriers (was : [PATCH] Add
cmpxchg support for ARMv6+ systems)
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:52:44AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Catalin Marinas (catalin.marinas@....com) wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 21:22 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > So, my questions is : is ARMv7 weak memory ordering model as weak as
> > > Alpha ?
> >
> > I'm not familiar with Alpha but ARM allows a weakly ordered memory
> > system (starting with ARMv6), it's up to the processor implementer to
> > decide how weak but within the ARM ARM restrictions (section A3.8.2).
> >
> > I think the main difference with Alpha is that ARM doesn't do
> > speculative writes, only speculative reads. The write cannot become
> > visible to other observers in the same shareability domain before the
> > instruction occurs in program order. But because of the write buffer,
> > there is no guarantee on the order of two writes becoming visible to
> > other observers in the same shareability domain. The reads from normal
> > memory can happen speculatively (with a few restrictions)
> >
> > Summarising from the ARM ARM, there are two terms used:
> >
> > Address dependency - an address dependency exists when the value
> > returned by a read access is used to compute the virtual address
> > of a subsequent read or write access.
> >
> > Control dependency - a control dependency exists when the data
> > value returned by a read access is used to determine the
> > condition code flags, and the values of the flags are used for
> > condition code checking to determine the address of a subsequent
> > read access.
> >
> > The (simplified) memory ordering restrictions of two explicit accesses
> > (where multiple observers are present and in the same shareability
> > domain):
> >
> > * If there is an address dependency then the two memory accesses
> > are observed in program order by any observer
> > * If the value returned by a read access is used as data written
> > by a subsequent write access, then the two memory accesses are
> > observed in program order
> > * It is impossible for an observer of a memory location to observe
> > a write access to that memory location if that location would
> > not be written to in a sequential execution of a program
> >
> > Outside of these restrictions, the processor implementer can do whatever
> > it makes the CPU faster. To ensure the relative ordering between memory
> > accesses (either read or write), the software should have DMB
> > instructions.
>
> Great, so no need to worry about smp_read_barrier_depend then, given
> there is an address dependency.
No need to worry from a CPU viewpoint, but still need to disable any
value-speculation optimizations that the compiler guys might indulge in.
Thanx, Paul
> Thanks !
>
> Mathieu
>
> > --
> > Catalin
> >
>
> --
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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