This is the mail archive of the
libc-ports@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the libc-ports project.
RE: [Patch] ARM define atomic_exchange_acq/atomic_exchange_rel to __atomic_exchange_n
- From: Abhishek Deb <adeb at nvidia dot com>
- To: Dinar Temirbulatov <dinar at kugelworks dot com>, "libc-ports at sourceware dot org" <libc-ports at sourceware dot org>
- Cc: "joseph at codesourcery dot com" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 14:46:16 -0700
- Subject: RE: [Patch] ARM define atomic_exchange_acq/atomic_exchange_rel to __atomic_exchange_n
- References: <CANoaTN2hKTZ7GZCMsYqai25PHO7GLb56huLosR7+dgjAEK2FGQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
Dinar,
Apologies for delayed response, as I was on vacation. Your changes look in line with the MIPS changes. Since GCC 4.7. onwards _atomic builtins are provided, it's the right thing to do. I have not tested your changes, but I don't see anything obviously wrong.
Following is how the compiled code looks like, when compiled with gcc 4.8
Atomic_exchange_rel :
c8: f57ff05f dmb sy
cc: e1952f9f ldrex r2, [r5]
d0: e1851f93 strex r1, r3, [r5]
d4: e3510000 cmp r1, #0
d8: 1afffffb bne cc
Atomic_exchange_acq :
94: e1953f9f ldrex r3, [r5]
98: e1852f97 strex r2, r7, [r5]
9c: e3520000 cmp r2, #0
a0: 1afffffb bne 94
a4: e3530000 cmp r3, #0
a8: 130f6c18 movwne r6, #64536 ; 0xfc18
ac: f57ff05f dmb sy
So these changes look correct.
However, taking a deeper look into atomic_compare_and_exchange_acq/rel, following is how the compiled code looks like
34: f57ff05f dmb sy
38: e1903f9f ldrex r3, [r0]
3c: e3530000 cmp r3, #0
40: 1a000002 bne 50
44: e1801f92 strex r1, r2, [r0]
48: e3510000 cmp r1, #0
4c: 1afffff9 bne 38
50: e3530000 cmp r3, #0
54: f57ff05f dmb sy
58: 1afffff5 bne 34
As you can see it contains two memory barrier one in the beginning and one in the end. Is it because gcc's _sync_* builtin was used? The _atomic_* builtins provides users to specify memodel for each of the builtin functions. Hence, shouldn't _atomic_ builtin with appropriate memmodel be used to do an atomic_compare_and_exchange_acq/rel?
In other words for a acquire semantic the first dmb is redundant and for a release semantic the second one is redundant. I don't know what do you think.
Abhishek
-----Original Message-----
From: Dinar Temirbulatov [mailto:dinar@kugelworks.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 10:11 AM
To: libc-ports@sourceware.org
Cc: joseph@codesourcery.com; Abhishek Deb
Subject: [Patch] ARM define atomic_exchange_acq/atomic_exchange_rel to __atomic_exchange_n
Hello,
Following patch redefines atomic_exchange_acq/atomic_exchange_rel to __atomic_exchange_n for ARM, that allows for example to reduce number of instruction sequence for lll_unlock
from:
ldex, cmp, bne, stex, cmp, bne
to
ldex, stex, cmp, bne
, more on the issue here:
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15640
This patch was tested on ARM a9 with glibc testsuite with no new regressions. OK to commit?
Thanks, Dinar.