Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] ACPI / EC: Fix broken 64bit big-endian users of 'global_lock'
From: James Bottomley
Date: Sat Sep 26 2015 - 15:52:22 EST
On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 22:58 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, September 25, 2015 01:25:49 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 25 September 2015 at 13:33, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > You're going to change that into bool in the next patch, right?
> > Yeah.
> > > So what if bool is a byte and the field is not word-aligned
> > Its between two 'unsigned long' variables today, and the struct isn't packed.
> > So, it will be aligned, isn't it?
> > > and changing
> > > that byte requires a read-modify-write. How do we ensure that things remain
> > > consistent in that case?
> > I didn't understood why a read-modify-write is special here? That's
> > what will happen
> > to most of the non-word-sized fields anyway?
> > Probably I didn't understood what you meant..
> Say you have three adjacent fields in a structure, x, y, z, each one byte long.
> Initially, all of them are equal to 0.
> CPU A writes 1 to x and CPU B writes 2 to y at the same time.
> What's the result?
I think every CPU's cache architecure guarantees adjacent store
integrity, even in the face of SMP, so it's x==1 and y==2. If you're
thinking of old alpha SMP system where the lowest store width is 32 bits
and thus you have to do RMW to update a byte, this was usually fixed by
padding (assuming the structure is not packed). However, it was such a
problem that even the later alpha chips had byte extensions.
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/