From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"waiman.long@hp.com" <waiman.long@hp.com>,
"ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] asm-generic implementations of low-level synchronisation constructs
Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 09:39:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140508163924.GG8754@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140508151331.GD8981@arm.com>
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:13:31PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 03:27:34PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:13:12AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > ATOMIC_RET(ptr, __ret, stmt)
> > > ({
> > > typeof(*ptr) __new, __val;
> > >
> > > smp_mb__before_llsc();
> > >
> > > do {
> > > __val = load_locked(ptr);
> > > stmt;
> > > } while (!store_conditional(ptr, __new));
> > >
> > > smp_mb__after_llsc();
> > >
> > > __ret;
> > > })
> >
> > So the most common constraint (which you've confirmed is true for ARM as
> > well) is that we should not have memory accesses in between an LL/SC.
>
> Yup.
>
> > Making sure GCC doesn't do any is tricky, the best I can come up with is
> > tagging all variables with the register qualifier, like:
> >
> > ATOMIC_RET(ptr, __ret, stmt)
> > ({
> > register typeof(*ptr) __new, __val;
> >
> > smp_mb__before_llsc();
> >
> > do {
> > __val = load_locked(ptr);
> > stmt;
> > } while (!store_conditional(ptr, __new));
> >
> > smp_mb__after_llsc();
> >
> > __ret;
> > })
> >
> > Now, I'm not at all sure if register still means anything to GCC, but in
> > the faint hope that it still sees it as a hint this might just work.
>
> I just ran this past our compiler guys and they threw rocks at me. Even if
> it happens to work today, I don't think we can rely on it tomorrow,
> unfortunately.
>
> I think that makes the case for extended the fine-grained atomics
> implemented by each architecture, but it would still be great to have a way
> to compose them.
I suppose that we could attempt to apply the same structure to the asms,
but it is not clear that this would be a win. There is some benefit to
having the assembly for each primitive laid out in one place, even if
it does mean quite a bit of duplicate code.
But yes, it sure feels like there should be some better way to do this...
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-08 16:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-07 18:29 Will Deacon
2014-05-07 19:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-07 21:20 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-08 9:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-08 14:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-08 14:43 ` David Woodhouse
2014-05-08 15:13 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-08 16:39 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2014-05-07 21:17 ` Waiman Long
2014-05-07 21:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-07 22:29 ` Waiman Long
2014-05-08 14:16 ` Will Deacon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140508163924.GG8754@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=waiman.long@hp.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox