Re: [PATCH 0/2] jump label: 2.6.38 updates

[Will Newton]

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:19 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 02/14/2011 02:37 PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't see how cache coherency can possibly work if the hardware
>>> behaves this way.
>>
>> Cache coherency is still maintained provided writes/reads both go
>> through the cache ;-)
>>
>> The problem is that for read-modify-write operations the arbitration
>> logic that decides who "wins" and is allowed to actually perform the
>> write, assuming two or more CPUs are competing for a single memory
>> address, is not implemented in the cache controller, I think. I'm not a
>> hardware engineer and I never understood how the arbitration logic
>> worked but I'm guessing that's the reason that the ll/sc instructions
>> bypass the cache.
>>
>> Which is why the atomic_t functions worked out really well for that
>> arch, such that any accesses to an atomic_t * had to go through the
>> wrapper functions.
>
> I'm sorry... this doesn't compute.  Either reads can work normally (go
> through the cache) in which case atomic_read() can simply be a read or
> they don't, so I don't understand this at all.

The CPU in question has two sets of instructions:

  load/store - these go via the cache (write through)
  ll/sc - these operate literally as if there is no cache (they do not
hit on read or write)

This may or may not be a sensible way to architect a CPU, but I think
it is possible to make it work. Making it work efficiently is more of
a challenge.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/