Re: bit fields && data tearing
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Date: Thu Sep 04 2014 - 05:53:43 EST
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 08:43 +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> > On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 18:51 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> > > Apologies for hijacking this thread but I need to extend this discussion
> > > somewhat regarding what a compiler might do with adjacent fields in a structure.
> > >
> > > The tty subsystem defines a large aggregate structure, struct tty_struct.
> > > Importantly, several different locks apply to different fields within that
> > > structure; ie., a specific spinlock will be claimed before updating or accessing
> > > certain fields while a different spinlock will be claimed before updating or
> > > accessing certain _adjacent_ fields.
> > >
> > > What is necessary and sufficient to prevent accidental false-sharing?
> > > The patch below was flagged as insufficient on ia64, and possibly ARM.
> > We expect native aligned scalar types to be accessed atomically (the
> > read/modify/write of a larger quantity that gcc does on some bitfield
> > cases has been flagged as a gcc bug, but shouldn't happen on normal
> > scalar types).
> That isn't true on all architectures for items smaller than a machine word.
> At least one has to do rmw for byte accesses.
Yeah correct, alpha and bytes right ? Is there any other ? That's why I
> > I am not 100% certain of "bool" here, I assume it's treated as a normal
> > scalar and thus atomic but if unsure, you can always use int.
> > Another option is to use the atomic bitops and make these bits in a
> > bitmask but that is probably unnecessary if you have locks already.
> > Cheers,
> > Ben.
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/