[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160408064136.GJ3448@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 08:41:36 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Paul Turner <commonly@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] restartable sequences v2: fast user-space percpu
critical sections
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 09:43:33AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> enter the critical section:
> 1:
> movq %[cpu], %%r12
> movq {address of counter for our cpu}, %%r13
> movq {some fresh value}, (%%r13)
> cmpq %[cpu], %%r12
> jne 1b
This is inherently racy; your forgot the detail of 'some fresh value',
but since you want to avoid collisions you really want an increment.
But load-store archs cannot do that. Or rather, they need to do:
load Rn, $event
add Rn, Rn, 1
store $event, Rn
But if they're preempted in the middle, two threads will collide and
generate the _same_ increment. Comparing CPU numbers will not fix that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists