On Thu, Sep 14 2017 at 3:54:02 pm BST, Stafford Horne <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 06:21:39PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
[...]
>> > +{
>> > + unsigned int dst_cpu;
>> > + unsigned int src_cpu = smp_processor_id();
>> > +
>> > + for_each_cpu(dst_cpu, mask) {
>> > + set_bit(ipi_msg, &per_cpu(ops, dst_cpu));
>> > +
>> > + /*
>> > + * On OpenRISC the atomic set_bit() call implies a memory
>> > + * barrier. Otherwise we would need: smp_wmb(); paired
>> > + * with the read in ompic_ipi_handler.
>> > + */
>>
>> One last question on this, because the architecture document is terribly
>> unclear: If you have CPU0 doing an atomic operation A0, CPU1 seeing A0
>> and doeing another atomic A1 (the set_bit above) followed by an IPI to
>> CPU2, is CPU2 *guaranteed* to observe both A0 *and* A1? Because that's
>> required by the IPI semantics, and you wouldn't see that kind of issue
>> with only two CPUs.
>
> Could you suggest an architecture document that makes this case clear?
>
> I believe this will not be a problem, but:
> 1. If this needs to be clear in the architecture document I can propose
> changes.
> 2. To be clear is this the scenario you mean..
>
> CASE1 - A0 and A1 are to different locations?
> A0 - writes to some unrelated global location?
>
> CPU0 CPU1 CPU2
> A0:atomic store (global)
> A1:set_bit (ops[CPU2])
> IPI
> read (A0,A1)
>
>
> OR
>
> CASE2 - A0 and A1 are to the same location.
> A0 - writes to the same location as A1
>
> CPU0 CPU1 CPU2
> A0:set_bit (ops[CPU2])
> A1:set_bit (ops[CPU2])
> IPI
> read (A0,A1)
> IPI
I think this covers both cases I had in mind.
>
>
> OR - something else?
>
> In both cases CPU2 would be able to see the results of both atomic
> operations. All, cpus in the OpenRISC system snoop for memory writes to
> enable cash coherency, so each CPU would see each write once it is synced
> to memory (there is a single memory bus). This is not limited to atomic
> operations, but the atomic operations provide a syncrhonization point
> accross all CPUs.
OK. It would be good if the architecture document had something about
transitivity of writes on SMP (maybe it has, I only went through it
pretty quickly). But overall, the above will work correctly.
> ps: Frank Zappa rocks :)
His music certainly does! ;-)
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny.
