mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Harald Welte <HaraldWelte@viatech.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: lkml@morethan.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: LOCK prefix on uni processor has its use (was Re: [BUG FIX] Make x86_32 uni-processor Atomic ops, Atomic)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 19:01:18 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090527170118.GC4024@prithivi.gnumonks.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A188A48.5000208@zytor.com>

Hi hpa and others,

On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 04:44:08PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
 
> It looks like there might be a problem with the C7-M ... Michael reports
> that if he sets LOCK_PREFIX to "lock;" it works, but that shouldn't be
> necessary for a uniprocessor.

It seems, they are neccessary.

Here are some statements from the CPU logic guys at VIA/Centaur:

* A read-modify-write sequence cannot be interupted.
* All X86 instructions except rep-strings are atomic wrt interrupts.
* The lock prefix has uses on a UP processor: It keeps DMA devices from
  interfering with a read-modify-write sequence

Furthermore, they have done some experimentation in the past, making the
CPU simply ignore the LOCK prefix on uni-processor (running a certain popular
proprietary operating system): It doesn't work, presumably of the abovementioned
DMA related conflict.

Also, the engineers believe that it is only a matter of time until different
CPU/chipset combination would expose the same bug.  Since the in-order
single-retire C7-M is more vulnerable than out-of-order, multiple-retire CPU's,
they are not surprised that the issue shows first on the C7-M.

The recommendation from the CPU engineers, unsurprisingly, thus is to put the
LOCK prefixes back where they were.

Hope this helps you.

Now if I understand the issues correctly, it would mean that there is some
driver code that modifies a certain chunk of memory, while DMA of some
peripheral is also accessing that memory.  I suppose it would not have to be
the same actual address, but probably being within the same cache line is
already sufficient.

Now the question is: Is this a valid operation of a driver?  Should the driver
do such things, or is such a driver broken?  When would that occur?  I'm trying
to come up with a case, but typically you e.g. allocate some DMA buffer and
then don't touch it until the hardware has processed it.

Regards,
-- 
- Harald Welte <HaraldWelte@viatech.com>	    http://linux.via.com.tw/
============================================================================
VIA Free and Open Source Software Liaison

  parent reply	other threads:[~2009-05-27 17:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 87+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-05-22 16:39 [BUG FIX] Make x86_32 uni-processor Atomic ops, Atomic Michael S. Zick
2009-05-22 18:23 ` Andi Kleen
2009-05-22 18:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-22 18:59   ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-22 19:20     ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-22 22:21     ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-22 23:30       ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-23  0:45         ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-23  0:51           ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-23 10:44             ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-23 11:18               ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-24  7:04               ` Harald Welte
2009-05-24 12:48                 ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-24 15:43                 ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-27 22:13               ` Roland Dreier
2009-05-27 22:33                 ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-23 15:52             ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-23 18:04             ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-23 23:44               ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-24  6:49                 ` Harald Welte
2009-05-24 12:38                   ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-24 17:31                     ` Harald Welte
2009-05-27 12:18                   ` Re:[VIA Support] was: " Michael S. Zick
2009-05-27 12:22                     ` [VIA " Michael S. Zick
2009-05-27 12:47                     ` Harald Welte
2009-05-27 13:00                       ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-29 12:06                     ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-30 15:48                   ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-24 12:27                 ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-24 17:22                   ` Harald Welte
2009-05-24 18:00                   ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-24 18:32                     ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-24 18:46                       ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-24 19:09                         ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-25 19:03                         ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-25 19:18                           ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-25 19:46                             ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-25 21:10                               ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-25 21:17                                 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-25 23:03                                   ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-25 23:35                                     ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-26  0:05                                     ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-26 12:37                                       ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-26 17:13                                         ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-25  1:31                       ` i2c-viapro / via-fb drivers on VIA CX700 Harald Welte
2009-05-25 12:54                         ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-27 13:36                         ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-25 16:05                       ` [BUG FIX] Make x86_32 uni-processor Atomic ops, Atomic Michael S. Zick
2009-05-28 20:30                     ` Pavel Machek
2009-05-28 20:54                       ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-28 23:15                         ` [Futex RFC] was " Michael S. Zick
2009-05-29  2:00                           ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-27 17:01                 ` Harald Welte [this message]
2009-05-27 17:10                   ` LOCK prefix on uni processor has its use (was Re: [BUG FIX] Make x86_32 uni-processor Atomic ops, Atomic) Michael S. Zick
2009-05-27 17:19                   ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-05-27 17:25                     ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-27 18:08                   ` LOCK prefix on uni processor has its use Andi Kleen
2009-05-27 18:22                     ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-27 18:33                       ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-27 18:55                         ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-27 18:38                       ` Andi Kleen
2009-06-02 12:48                     ` Harald Welte
2009-06-02 13:03                       ` Andi Kleen
2009-06-02 13:26                         ` Michael S. Zick
2009-06-02 13:42                           ` Andi Kleen
2009-06-03 11:46                             ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-28  2:56                   ` LOCK prefix on uni processor has its use (was Re: [BUG FIX] Make x86_32 uni-processor Atomic ops, Atomic) H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-23 20:51             ` [BUG FIX] Make x86_32 uni-processor Atomic ops, Atomic Michael S. Zick
2009-05-28 12:48       ` Pavel Machek
2009-05-28 13:29         ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-28 20:50           ` Pavel Machek
2009-05-28 20:58             ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-28 21:16               ` Pavel Machek
2009-05-28 21:21                 ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-22 19:17   ` Michael S. Zick
     [not found] ` <200905221343.30638.lkml@morethan.org>
     [not found]   ` <20090522192329.GF846@one.firstfloor.org>
2009-05-22 19:53     ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-22 20:05       ` Samuel Thibault
2009-05-22 20:32         ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-22 20:42           ` Andi Kleen
2009-05-22 20:57             ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-22 20:43           ` Samuel Thibault
2009-05-22 21:59             ` Andi Kleen
2009-05-22 22:00               ` Samuel Thibault
2009-05-22 22:14                 ` Andi Kleen
2009-05-22 22:14                   ` Samuel Thibault
2009-05-22 20:45           ` Roland Dreier
2009-05-24 18:59           ` Robert Hancock

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20090527170118.GC4024@prithivi.gnumonks.org \
    --to=haraldwelte@viatech.com \
    --cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lkml@morethan.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®