Date:	Wed, 27 May 2009 14:40:41 -0400
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:	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,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Broken ARM atomic ops wrt memory barriers (was : [PATCH] Add
	cmpxchg support for ARMv6+ systems)

* 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.
> 

Just to make sure :

for the read seqlock, a smp_rmb() is present. I assume that given there
is no address nor control dependency (as stated above) between the
seqlock value reads and the data access, these barriers cannot be
downgraded to a smp read barrier depend. It's a shame to have to do two
full dmb for every sequence lock. Are there any plans on the ARM side to
eventually add faster read barriers ?

Basically, on arm, a seqlock fast path takes 11 cycles on UP. If we add
the two dmb, it now takes 73 cycles.

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