Re: [PATCH] x86: fix and improve cmpxchg_double{,_local}()

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 03.01.12 at 16:00, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Le lundi 02 janvier 2012 Ã 17:02 +0000, Jan Beulich a Ãcrit :
>> Just like the per-CPU ones they had several problems/shortcomings:
>> 
>> Only the first memory operand was mentioned in the asm() operands, and
>> the 2x64-bit version didn't have a memory clobber while the 2x32-bit
>> one did. The former allowed the compiler to not recognize the need to
>> re-load the data in case it had it cached in some register, while the
>> latter was overly destructive.
>> 
>> The types of the local copies of the old and new values were incorrect
>> (the types of the pointed-to variables should be used here, to make
>> sure the respective old/new variable types are compatible).
>> 
>> The __dummy/__junk variables were pointless, given that local copies
>> of the inputs already existed (and can hence be used for discarded
>> outputs).
>> 
>> The 32-bit variant of cmpxchg_double_local() referenced
>> cmpxchg16b_local().
>> 
>> At once also
>> - change the return value type to what it really is: 'bool'
>> - unify 32- and 64-bit variants
>> - abstract out the common part of the 'normal' and 'local' variants
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> 
> While looking at your patch, I discovered that atomic64_add() /
> atomic64_inc() on 32bit are completely buggy. Oh well...
> 
> Generated code :
> 
> c03bc00c <atomic64_add_return_cx8>:
> c03bc00c:       55                      push   %ebp
> c03bc00d:       53                      push   %ebx
> c03bc00e:       56                      push   %esi
> c03bc00f:       57                      push   %edi
> c03bc010:       89 c6                   mov    %eax,%esi
> c03bc012:       89 d7                   mov    %edx,%edi
> c03bc014:       89 cd                   mov    %ecx,%ebp
> c03bc016:       89 d8                   mov    %ebx,%eax
> c03bc018:       89 ca                   mov    %ecx,%edx
> c03bc01a:       f0 0f c7 4d 00          lock cmpxchg8b 0x0(%ebp)
> c03bc01f:       89 c3                   mov    %eax,%ebx
> c03bc021:       89 d1                   mov    %edx,%ecx
> c03bc023:       01 f3                   add    %esi,%ebx
> c03bc025:       11 f9                   adc    %edi,%ecx
> c03bc027:       f0 0f c7 4d 00          lock cmpxchg8b 0x0(%ebp)
> c03bc02c:       75 f9                   jne    c03bc027 
> <atomic64_add_return_cx8+0x1b>
> c03bc02e:       89 d8                   mov    %ebx,%eax
> c03bc030:       89 ca                   mov    %ecx,%edx
> c03bc032:       5f                      pop    %edi
> c03bc033:       5e                      pop    %esi
> c03bc034:       5b                      pop    %ebx
> c03bc035:       5d                      pop    %ebp
> c03bc036:       c3                      ret
> 
> The ' jne c03bc027' should really be 'jne c03bc01f'

Indeed, and that's the same for all other routines in this file that
incorrectly use 1: together with LOCK_PREFIX between the label and
an intended jump to that label.

> No idea how old is this bug.

The file (and with it the bug) was introduced in 2.6.35.

While looking at this I also noticed this comment in read64: "we need
LOCK_PREFIX since otherwise cmpxchg8b always does the write",
which is saying quite the opposite of the Intel manual: "This instruction
can be used with a LOCK prefix to allow the instruction to be executed
atomically. To simplify the interface to the processorâs bus, the
destination operand receives a write cycle without regard to the result
of the comparison. The destination operand is written back if the
comparison fails; otherwise, the source operand is written into the
destination. (The processor never produces a locked read without
also producing a locked write.)" - I would conclude the LOCK prefix
actually hurts there.

And in atomic64_set_cx8 it's the other way around: The comment
explains why supposedly no LOCK prefix is needed, but that's again
in conflict with above quoted paragraph from the manual.

Jan
--
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/