[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3461169.v5xKdGLGjP@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 16:09:25 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linaro Kernel Mailman List <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
QCA ath9k Development <ath9k-devel@....qualcomm.com>,
Intel Linux Wireless <ilw@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:BLUETOOTH DRIVERS" <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:AMD IOMMU (AMD-VI)" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:NETWORKING DRIVERS (WIRELESS)"
<linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:TARGET SUBSYSTEM" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:ULTRA-WIDEBAND (UWB) SUBSYSTEM:"
<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:EDAC-CORE" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"moderated list:SOUND - SOC LAYER / DYNAMIC AUDIO POWER MANAGEM..."
<alsa-devel@...a-project.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] ACPI / EC: Fix broken 64bit big-endian users of 'global_lock'
On Saturday, September 26, 2015 12:52:08 PM James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 22:58 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, September 25, 2015 01:25:49 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > On 25 September 2015 at 13:33, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> > > > You're going to change that into bool in the next patch, right?
> > >
> > > Yeah.
> > >
> > > > So what if bool is a byte and the field is not word-aligned
> > >
> > > Its between two 'unsigned long' variables today, and the struct isn't packed.
> > > So, it will be aligned, isn't it?
> > >
> > > > and changing
> > > > that byte requires a read-modify-write. How do we ensure that things remain
> > > > consistent in that case?
> > >
> > > I didn't understood why a read-modify-write is special here? That's
> > > what will happen
> > > to most of the non-word-sized fields anyway?
> > >
> > > Probably I didn't understood what you meant..
> >
> > Say you have three adjacent fields in a structure, x, y, z, each one byte long.
> > Initially, all of them are equal to 0.
> >
> > CPU A writes 1 to x and CPU B writes 2 to y at the same time.
> >
> > What's the result?
>
> I think every CPU's cache architecure guarantees adjacent store
> integrity, even in the face of SMP, so it's x==1 and y==2. If you're
> thinking of old alpha SMP system where the lowest store width is 32 bits
> and thus you have to do RMW to update a byte, this was usually fixed by
> padding (assuming the structure is not packed). However, it was such a
> problem that even the later alpha chips had byte extensions.
OK, thanks!
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists