On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 11:16:55AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Russell King wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 10:56:14AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > I'd really appreciate a cmpxchg that is generically available for
> > > all arches. It will allow lockless implementation for various performance
> > > criticial portions of the kernel.
> >
> > Let's recap on cmpxchg.
> >
> > For CPUs with no atomic operation other than SWP, it is not lockless.
>
> But then its also just requires disable/enable interrupts on UP which may
> be cheaper than an atomic operation.
No. SWP is atomic on the CPU it's being issued on, especially wrt
interrupts. Only on one ARM CPU (which is UP) does it have a
questionable use, and there we do it via interrupt disable/enable.
> > For CPUs with load locked + store conditional, it is expensive.
>
> Because it locks the bus? I am not that familiar with those architectures
> but it seems that those will have a general problem anyways.
No. That certainly would be bad for performance. I can talk
authoritively from the ARM implementation.
When you use a special "ldrex" (load exclusive) instruction, the
CPU remembers the "address + cpu" pair. If another access occurs
to the same address, this state is reset.
Only if this state is preserved will a "strex" (store exclusive)
instruction succeed. This instruction returns status indicating
whether it succeeded.
So, to implement cmpxchg, you need to do this:
; r1 = temporary register
; r2 = address
; r4 = new value
; r3 = returned status
ldrex r1, [r2]
cmp r1, old_value
streqex r3, r4, [r2]
> > If you want an operation for performance critical portions of the
> > kernel, please allow architecture maintainers the freedom to use their
> > best performance enhancements.
>
> And thereby denying the kernel developers to use a simple atomic SMP
> operation? Adding additional defines for each arch and each performance
> critical piece of kernel logic?
No. If you read what I said, you'll see that you can _cheaply_ use
cmpxchg in a ll/sc based implementation. Take an atomic increment
operation.
do {
old = load_locked(addr);
} while (store_exclusive(old, old + 1, addr);
On a cmpxchg, that "store_exclusive" (loosely) becomes your cmpxchg
instruction, comparing the first arg, and if equal storing the second.
The "load_locked" macro becomes a standard pointer deref. Ergo, x86
becomes:
do {
load value
manipulate it
conditional store
} while not stored
On ll/sc, the load_locked() macro is the load locked instruction. The
store_exclusive() macro is the exclusive store and it doesn't need to
use the first parameter at all. Ergo, ARM becomes:
do {
ldrex r1, [r2]
manipulate r1
strex r0, r1, [r2]
} while failed
Notice that both are optimal.
Now let's consider the cmpxchg case.
do {
val = *addr;
} while (cmpxchg(val, val + 1, addr);
The x86 case is _identical_ to the ll/sc based implementation. Absolutely
entirely. No impact what so ever.
Let's look at the ll/sc case. The cmpxchg code implemented on this has
to reload the original value, compare it, if equal store the new value.
So:
do {
val = *addr;
(r2 = addr,
ldrex r1, [r2]
compare r1, r0
strexeq r4, r3, [r2] (store exclusive if equal)
} while store failed or comparecondition failed
Note how the cmpxchg has _forced_ the ll/sc implementation to become
more complex.
So, let's recap.
Implementing ll/sc based accessor macros allows both ll/sc _and_ cmpxchg
architectures to produce optimal code.
Implementing an cmpxchg based accessor macro allows cmpxchg architectures
to produce optimal code and ll/sc non-optimal code.
See my point?
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
