On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:13:55AM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 8:50 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 08:01:41PM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> > > u32 a = 0x55aa66bb;
> > > u16 *ptr = &a;
> > >
> > > CPU0 CPU1
> > > ========= =========
> > > xchg16(ptr, new) while(1)
> > > WRITE_ONCE(*(ptr + 1), x);
> > >
> > > When we use lr.w/sc.w implement xchg16, it'll cause CPU0 deadlock.
> >
> > Then I think your LL/SC is broken.
> >
> > That also means you really don't want to build super complex locking
> > primitives on top, because that live-lock will percolate through.
> Do you mean the below implementation has live-lock risk?
> +static __always_inline u32 xchg_tail(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 tail)
> +{
> + u32 old, new, val = atomic_read(&lock->val);
> +
> + for (;;) {
> + new = (val & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK) | tail;
> + old = atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, val, new);
> + if (old == val)
> + break;
> +
> + val = old;
> + }
> + return old;
> +}
That entirely depends on the architecture (and cmpxchg() impementation).
There are a number of cases:
* architecture has cmpxchg() instruction (x86, s390, sparc, etc.).
- architecture provides fwd progress (x86)
- architecture requires backoff for progress (sparc)
* architecture does not have cmpxchg, and implements it using LL/SC.
and here things get *really* interesting, because while an
architecture can have LL/SC fwd progress, that does not translate into
cmpxchg() also having the same guarantees and all bets are off.
The real bummer is that C can do cmpxchg(), but there is no way it can
do LL/SC. And even if we'd teach C how to do LL/SC, it couldn't be
generic because architectures lacking it can't emulate it using
cmpxchg() (there's a fun class of bugs there).
So while the above code might be the best we can do in generic code,
it's really up to the architecture to make it work.
