Re: [patch 00/21] mutex subsystem, -V14

[Ingo Molnar]

* Joel Schopp <jschopp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The bne- and isync together form a sufficient import barrier.  See 
> PowerPC Book2 Appendix B.2.1.1

ok. Please correct me if i'm wrong: the question is, could we on ppc64 
use atomic_dec_return() for mutex_lock(), and atomic_inc_return() for 
mutex_unlock().

atomic_dec_return() does:

        EIEIO_ON_SMP
"1:     lwarx   %0,0,%1         # atomic_dec_return\n\
        addic   %0,%0,-1\n"
        PPC405_ERR77(0,%1)
"       stwcx.  %0,0,%1\n\
        bne-    1b"
        ISYNC_ON_SMP

the EIEIO_ON_SMP is in essence smp_wmb(), correct? (it's a bit stronger 
because it also orders IO-space writes, but it doesnt impose any 
restrictions on reads)

ISYNC_ON_SMP flushes all speculative reads currently in the queue - and 
is hence a smp_rmb_backwards() primitive [per my previous mail] - but 
does not affect writes - correct?

if that's the case, what prevents a store from within the critical 
section going up to right after the EIEIO_ON_SMP, but before the 
atomic-dec instructions? Does any of those instructions imply some 
barrier perhaps? Are writes always ordered perhaps (like on x86 CPUs), 
and hence the store before the bne is an effective write-barrier?

	Ingo
-
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/