From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932779Ab0JRPwS (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:52:18 -0400 Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([217.140.96.50]:39402 "EHLO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755222Ab0JRPwQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:52:16 -0400 From: Catalin Marinas To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , Ohad Ben-Cohen , Hari Kanigeri , Suman Anna , Benoit Cousson , Tony Lindgren , Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Grant Likely , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add OMAP hardware spinlock misc driver References: <1287387875-14168-1-git-send-email-ohad@wizery.com> <1287406015.29097.1579.camel@twins> <20101018133502.GA12449@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <1287409417.29097.1598.camel@twins> <1287415929.29097.1616.camel@twins> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:51:41 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1287415929.29097.1616.camel@twins> (Peter Zijlstra's message of "Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:32:09 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Oct 2010 15:51:47.0473 (UTC) FILETIME=[5EEE5810:01CB6EDC] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 16:27 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> > On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 14:35 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> >> In any case, Linux's spinlock API (or more accurately, the ARM exclusive >> >> access instructions) relies upon hardware coherency support (a piece of >> >> hardware called an exclusive monitor) which isn't present on the M3 nor >> >> DSP processors. So there's no way to ensure that updates from the M3 >> >> and DSP are atomic wrt the A9 updates. >> > >> > Right, so the problem is that there simply is no way to do atomic memory >> > access from these auxiliary processing units wrt the main CPU? Seeing as >> > they operate on the same memory space, wouldn't it make sense to have >> > them cache-coherent and thus provide atomicy guarantees through that? >> >> With cache coherency you may get atomicity of writes or reads but >> usually not atomic modifications. > > Sure, but you can 'easily' extend your coherency protocols with support > for things like ll/sc (or larger transactions). > > Have ll bring the cacheline into exclusive state and tag it, then > anything that demotes the cacheline will clear the tag and make sc fail. For the ll/sc operations on ARM (exclusive load/store) there is a per-CPU local exclusive monitor and a (virtual) global one. The global one may either be a separate piece of hardware or emulated via cache lines as you said. But if you need synchronisation with a CPU (or DSP) like Cortex-M3 which doesn't have any built-in caches, you can only get atomic operations on the main processor (A9) but not on the M3 (as you can't have a cache line in exclusive state on the M3). The M3 may have a local exclusive monitor (like the main CPU) but it isn't cleared by memory accesses from the main CPU. -- Catalin