[ltt-dev] [PATCH] fix the "unknown" case

[mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com (Mathieu Desnoyers)]

* Paul E. McKenney (paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 05:36:05PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 05:20:34PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 09:46:31PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > [...]
> > > > 
> > > > (will reply to the rest in the individual patches)
> > > > 
> > > > > > Can we trust __sync_lock_test_and_set/__sync_add_and_fetch given that
> > > > > > __sync_synchronize is broken ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't know yet.  If it turns out that we cannot, then I will use some
> > > > > form of global locking.  But the __sync_lock_test_and_set() do at least
> > > > > generate instructions, unlike __sync_synchronize().  ;-)
> > > > 
> > > > I'm concerned about the fact that their synchronization primitives might have
> > > > the assembly all with, except for the memory barriers.
> > > 
> > > OK.  How about if I used a hashed array of locks, indexed by a hash of
> > > the cacheline number of the access in question?  Then the "unknown" case
> > > doesn't depend at all on the __sync_ primitives.
> > 
> > I'm afraid this won't work with signal handlers. :-/ It would be a shame to have
> > to make these primitives non-signal-safe just for the sake of the "unknown"
> > arch. Or maybe it could make sense to disable signals around these, even though
> > it will be really slow ?
> 
> Hmmm...
> 
> Maybe the right thing to do is to make the build fail in the "unknown"
> case.  By the time we make this safe, the performance will be pretty
> bad!
> 
> My thought is to simply not have the two "unknown" include files, so
> that configuration dies when trying to copy them over.  Perhaps better
> yet, have the two "unknown" include files have nothing but a #error
> statement.  Seem like a reasonable approach?

Yep, I like the #error approach. It will provide a meaningful error message.

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Mathieu
> > 
> > > 
> > > 							Thanx, Paul
> > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > 
> > > > Mathieu
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I will send two patches, one that incorporates your suggestions, and
> > > > > another that removes sync_core().
> > > > > 
> > > > > 							Thanx, Paul
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Mathieu
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +#ifdef __cplusplus 
> > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > +#endif
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +#include <urcu/uatomic_generic.h>
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +#endif /* _URCU_ARCH_UATOMIC_ARMV7_H */
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > Mathieu Desnoyers
> > > > > > Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
> > > > > > EfficiOS Inc.
> > > > > > http://www.efficios.com
> > > > 
> > > > -- 
> > > > Mathieu Desnoyers
> > > > Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
> > > > EfficiOS Inc.
> > > > http://www.efficios.com
> > 
> > -- 
> > Mathieu Desnoyers
> > Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
> > EfficiOS Inc.
> > http://www.efficios.com

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com