Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 13:38:51 -0700 From: Andre McCurdy <armccurdy@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm: enable a_ll and a_sc helper functions when building for ARMv6T2 On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:14:51PM -0700, Andre McCurdy wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 9:38 AM, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: >> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 06:51:44PM -0700, Andre McCurdy wrote: >> >> ARMv6 cores with support for Thumb2 can take advantage of the "ldrex" >> >> and "strex" based implementations of a_ll and a_sc. >> >> --- >> >> arch/arm/atomic_arch.h | 2 +- >> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/atomic_arch.h b/arch/arm/atomic_arch.h >> >> index 5ff1be1..62458b4 100644 >> >> --- a/arch/arm/atomic_arch.h >> >> +++ b/arch/arm/atomic_arch.h >> >> @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ extern uintptr_t __attribute__((__visibility__("hidden"))) >> >> __a_cas_ptr, __a_barrier_ptr; >> >> >> >> #if ((__ARM_ARCH_6__ || __ARM_ARCH_6K__ || __ARM_ARCH_6KZ__ || __ARM_ARCH_6ZK__) && !__thumb__) \ >> >> - || __ARM_ARCH_7A__ || __ARM_ARCH_7R__ || __ARM_ARCH >= 7 >> >> + || __ARM_ARCH_6T2__ || __ARM_ARCH_7A__ || __ARM_ARCH_7R__ || __ARM_ARCH >= 7 >> >> >> >> #define a_ll a_ll >> >> static inline int a_ll(volatile int *p) >> > >> > I'm merging this along with the others, but there is some concern that >> > our use of a_ll/a_sc might not actually be valid on most or all of the >> > archs we currently use it on. Depending on how this turns out it might >> > all be removed at some later time. >> >> That sound ominous. What's the concern? > > Originally ARM didn't document it, but reportedly it's now documented > somewhere that the ll and sc operations have certain strong conditions > on how they're used. RISC-V's and maybe other archs' also have similar > conditions. They're something along the lines of (from my memory): > > - no intervening loads or stores between ll and sc > - limit on number of instructions between ll and sc > - no jumps or branches between ll and sc > > and there is no way to guarantee these kinds of conditions when the > compiler is free to move the ll and sc asm blocks independently. > > From a practical standpoint, it looks like the conditions are overly > conservative and designed to allow cpu implementations with very bad > cache designs (direct-mapped, small, etc.) but they may turn out to be > relevant so we need to evaluate if we need to care about this... Thanks. Google found the following: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10812442/arm-ll-sc-exclusive-access-by-register-width-or-cache-line-width http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.dht0008a/CJAGCFAF.html It takes some digesting, but I don't see an immediate red flag. An instruction sequence which Interleaves two ll sc sequences would seem to be an issue, but we don't do that. A uniprocessor system running without data caching could be problem (implementation dependent). But if I read correctly, the failure mode would be that sc would always fail and therefore the system would deadlock, so it won't be a subtle failure?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.