[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <tnxeibnh67q.fsf@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:27:05 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>,
Hari Kanigeri <h-kanigeri2@...com>, Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>,
Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@...com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add OMAP hardware spinlock misc driver
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 14:35 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> In any case, Linux's spinlock API (or more accurately, the ARM exclusive
>> access instructions) relies upon hardware coherency support (a piece of
>> hardware called an exclusive monitor) which isn't present on the M3 nor
>> DSP processors. So there's no way to ensure that updates from the M3
>> and DSP are atomic wrt the A9 updates.
>
> Right, so the problem is that there simply is no way to do atomic memory
> access from these auxiliary processing units wrt the main CPU? Seeing as
> they operate on the same memory space, wouldn't it make sense to have
> them cache-coherent and thus provide atomicy guarantees through that?
With cache coherency you may get atomicity of writes or reads but
usually not atomic modifications.
--
Catalin
--
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