On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 06:23:10AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:32:01AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > and so it is using a store-pair instruction to reduce the complexity in
> > the immediate generation. Thus, the 64-bit store will only have 32-bit
> > atomicity. In fact, this is scary because if I change bar to:
> >
> > void bar(u64 *x)
> > {
> > *(volatile u64 *)x = 0xabcdef10abcdef10;
> > }
> >
> > then I get:
> >
> > bar:
> > mov w1, 61200
> > movk w1, 0xabcd, lsl 16
> > str w1, [x0]
> > str w1, [x0, 4]
> > ret
> >
> > so I'm not sure that WRITE_ONCE would even help :/
>
> Well, I can have the LWN article cite your email, then. So thank you
> very much!
>
> Is generation of this code for a 64-bit volatile store considered a bug?
> Or does ARMv8 exclude the possibility of 64-bit MMIO registers? And I
> would guess that Thomas and Linus would ask a similar bugginess question
> for normal stores. ;-)
I'm calling this a compiler bug; the way I understand volatile this is
very much against the intentended use case. That is, this is buggy even
on UP vs signals or MMIO.
