Re: [PATCH] only irq-safe atomic ops
Sat, 23 Feb 2002 04:38:15 -0700
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 11:54:48PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Robert Love wrote:
> > Thinking about it, you are probably going to be doing this:
> > ++counter[smp_processor_id()];
> > and that is not preempt-safe since the whole operation certainly is not
> > atomic. The current CPU could change between calculating it and
> > referencing the array.
> yup. It'd probably work - the compiler should calculate the address and
> do a non-buslocked but IRQ-atomic increment on it. But no way can we
> rely on that happening.
> > But, that wouldn't matter as long as you only
> > cared about the sum of the counters.
> If the compiler produced code equivalent to
> counter[smp_processor_id()] = counter[smp_processor_id()] + 1;
> then the counter would get trashed - a context switch could cause CPUB
> to write CPUA's counter (+1) onto CPUB's counter. It's quite possibly
> illegal for the compiler to evaluate the array subscript twice in this
> manner. Dunno.
> If the compiler produced code equivalent to:
> const int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> counter[cpu] = counter[cpu] + 1;
> (which is much more likely) then a context switch would result
> in CPUB writing CPUA's updated counter onto CPUA's counter. Which
> will work a lot more often, until CPUA happens to be updating its
> counter at the same time.
So without preemption in the kernel
maybe 4 instructions: calculate cpuid, inc; all local no cache ping
code is easy to read and understand.
with preemption in the kernel
a design problem. a slippery synchronization issue that
involves the characteristic preemption error - code that works
most of the time.
Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/