On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 21:54, Philippe Gerum wrote: > On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 21:26, Michael Neuhauser wrote: > > Hello! > > > > During my work on Adeos for ARM I've noticed the following: In > > __adeos_stall_root() (both 2.4 & 2.6) the stall flag is set like this: > > > > adeos_get_cpu(flags); > > __set_bit(IPIPE_STALL_FLAG,&adp_root->cpudata[cpuid].status); > > adeos_put_cpu(flags); > > > > I don't understand why the non-atomic __set_bit() is used instead of the > > atomic set_bit(). Maybe someone can shed some light on this. > > > > Suppose we have a non-SMP machine. In this case, adeos_get_cpu() is a > > nop. Hence, hw-irqs may be enabled when __set_bit() is executed. On ARM, > > __set_bit() is implemented as > > > > read from memory; modify register; write to memory > > > > Assume an interrupt happens after the read and before the write and that > > some other bit of "status" is modified during the interrupt > > => this modification is lost as the interrupted __set_bit() uses the > > value of "status" before the interrupt! > > > > This may not happen on i386 where __set_bit() is implemented as a single > > asm instruction (which I assume is interrupt safe). But as > > __adeos_stall_root() is contained in include/linux/adeos.h (i.e. generic > > code) I think the atomic bitop has to be used. > > > > __adeos_test_and_stall_root() and adeos_unstall_pipeline_from() also use > > some non-atomic bitop without ensuring that hw-interrupts are disabled. > > > > Ack, it's a bug non-x86 wise; likely a collision between two past change > sets, namely using adeos_get_cpu() when adeos_lock_cpu() would have been > overkill on UP, and set/clear_bits() changed to __set/__clear_bits() for > the same reason given that the interrupts were guaranteed to be off at > that time. The problem is that #1 came after #2, and introduced this bug > recently
Should be fixed in the CVS by now. I tried to refrain from using the adeos_get_cpu/adeos_put_cpu construct but rather differenciate the UP/SMP cases explicitely, because the former is confusing and leads to less efficient code in the UP case. At some point in time, I guess that we will need to get rid of them completely. > . > > > Mike -- Philippe.
