Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 03/25/2010 06:39 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 05:11:43PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >> Use __sync_bool_compare_and_swap to yield correctly atomic results.
> >> As yet, this assumes running on an strict-memory-ordering host (i.e. x86),
> >>
Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 03/25/2010 10:40 AM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> > Sparc V8 has two atomic instructions, ldstub and swap.
>
> I know -- but not the CAS operation being discussed here.
>
> As I think about this more and more, the Real Problem is
> not with the CAS, but with the memory orderi
On 03/25/2010 10:40 AM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> Sparc V8 has two atomic instructions, ldstub and swap.
I know -- but not the CAS operation being discussed here.
As I think about this more and more, the Real Problem is
not with the CAS, but with the memory ordering requirements
of the guest vs the mem
On 3/25/10, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 03/25/2010 06:39 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 05:11:43PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >> Use __sync_bool_compare_and_swap to yield correctly atomic results.
> >> As yet, this assumes running on an strict-memory-ordering host
On 03/25/2010 09:42 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> Ah, OK. Those helpers are never called for user-mode emulation,
> though. They're only called for system emulation and...well, everybody
> lies about being atomic in system mode. :)
Ah, right. I missed the user/system variations of OP_ST_ATOMIC.
r
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 09:29:18AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 03/25/2010 09:06 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> > It pretends just as much as ppc and arm. See translate.c:OP_ST_ATOMIC.
>
> No it doesn't. Look at HELPER_ST_ATOMIC:
>
> tmp = do_##ld_insn(arg2, mem_idx);
On 03/25/2010 09:06 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
>> Mips doesn't even pretend to be atomic.
>
> It pretends just as much as ppc and arm. See translate.c:OP_ST_ATOMIC.
No it doesn't. Look at HELPER_ST_ATOMIC:
tmp = do_##ld_insn(arg2, mem_idx);\
if
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 08:46:06AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 03/25/2010 06:39 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 05:11:43PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >> Use __sync_bool_compare_and_swap to yield correctly atomic results.
> >> As yet, this assumes running on an st
On 03/25/2010 06:39 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 05:11:43PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> Use __sync_bool_compare_and_swap to yield correctly atomic results.
>> As yet, this assumes running on an strict-memory-ordering host (i.e. x86),
>> since we're still "implementing" t
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 05:11:43PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Use __sync_bool_compare_and_swap to yield correctly atomic results.
> As yet, this assumes running on an strict-memory-ordering host (i.e. x86),
> since we're still "implementing" the memory-barrier instructions as nops.
Did the
Use __sync_bool_compare_and_swap to yield correctly atomic results.
As yet, this assumes running on an strict-memory-ordering host (i.e. x86),
since we're still "implementing" the memory-barrier instructions as nops.
Rename the "lock" cpu field to "lock_addr" and add a "lock_value" field
to be use
11 matches
Mail list logo
