Hi Ramana and Peter,
There is no issue in the first case. You are correct that the dmb’s there > are to ensure the sequential consistency as you’d want to see with > __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST in the call to the builtin. However what you must remember > is that STRs are guaranteed to be single-copy atomic by the architecture on > v7-a. In general on v7-a there is single-copy atomicity with loads and > stores to byte, half-words (2 byte aligned) and word (4 byte aligned) > addresses i.e. ldrb, ldrh and ldr. > ok, but if I understand well the ARM ARM atomicity chapter (A3.5.3) the single-copy atomicity is not guarantee for unaligned access, so maybe I missed something, but if it is allowed to call an atomic builtin on an unaligned address, we could have an issue. On systems with LPAE enabled, ldrd and strd are also guaranteed to be > atomic copies from 64 bit aligned addresses, thus in general for v7-a you > should be using the ldrexd / strexd variant in this particular case. Thus > the code for the first example should work correctly as is and **not** > require an ldrex / strex implementation. **** > > ** ** > > The second case always hurts my head – the short story is that you are > right and it looks like a bug. The barrier needs to be after the load and > not before because `Acquire’ semantics imply that no reads in the current > thread dependent on the value currently loaded can be reordered before this > load. What this means is that loads before this operation can percolate > downwards towards the barrier . **** > > ** ** > > The other clue to this is the definition around the `Release’ semantics, > where no writes in the current thread can be reordered after this store. > This implies that the write operation puts out barriers **before** the > write which is what we do with __atomic_store_n (addr, 0, > __ATOMIC_RELEASE); and that appears to be correct. > I am agree. > However what’s not clear to me is why there is this deliberate choice in > the default implementation of expand_atomic_load to put out a memory fence > before the load and that seems to have percolated back down into the > backend for atomic_loaddi. We should take this up upstream as a bug.**** > > ** > It is not clear for me too, I would have write the expand_atomic_load like that : if (model == MEMMODEL_SEQ_CST) expand_mem_thread_fence (model); emit_move_insn (target, mem); if (model == MEMMODEL_SEQ_CST || model == MEMMODEL_ACQUIRE) expand_mem_thread_fence (model); I'll ask the question upstream. Yvan
_______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
