Re: [PATCH V2 11/19] csky: Atomic operations
From: Guo Ren
Date: Sat Jul 07 2018 - 04:09:12 EST
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 02:17:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > CPU0 CPU1
> > r1 = READ_ONCE(x); WRITE_ONCE(y, 1);
> > r2 = xchg(&y, 2); smp_store_release(&x, 1);
> > must not allow: r1==1 && r2==0
> Also, since you said "SYNC.IS" is a pipeline flush, those
> instruction-sync primitives normally do not imply a store-buffer flush,
> does yours? If not it is not a valid smp_mb() implementation.
Sync.is will flush pipeline and store-buffer.
"sync" means completion memory barrier.
"i" means flush cpu pipeline.
"s" means sharable to other cpus.
> CPU0 CPU1
> WRITE_ONCE(x, 1); WRITE_ONCE(y, 1);
> smp_mb(); smp_mb();
> r0 = READ_ONCE(y); r1 = READ_ONCE(x);
> must not allow: r0==0 && r1==0
> Which would be possible with a regular instruction-sync barrier, but
> must absolutely not be true with a full memory barrier.
> (and you can replace the smp_mb(); r = READ_ONCE(); with r = xchg() to
> again see why you need that first smp_mb()).
WRITE_ONCE(x, 1) WRITE_ONCE(y, 1)
r0 = xchg(&y, 2) r1 = xchg(&x, 2)
must not allow: r0==0 && r1==0
So we must add a smp_mb between WRITE_ONCE() and xchg(), right?