Hi Greentime,

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 01:54:59PM +0800, Greentime Hu wrote:
> From: Greentime Hu <greent...@andestech.com>
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vincent Chen <vince...@andestech.com>
> Signed-off-by: Greentime Hu <greent...@andestech.com>
> ---
>  arch/nds32/include/asm/futex.h    |  116 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  arch/nds32/include/asm/spinlock.h |  178 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 294 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 arch/nds32/include/asm/futex.h
>  create mode 100644 arch/nds32/include/asm/spinlock.h

[...]

> +static inline int
> +futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic(u32 * uval, u32 __user * uaddr,
> +                           u32 oldval, u32 newval)
> +{
> +     int ret = 0;
> +     u32 val, tmp, flags;
> +
> +     if (!access_ok(VERIFY_WRITE, uaddr, sizeof(u32)))
> +             return -EFAULT;
> +
> +     smp_mb();
> +     asm volatile ("       movi    $ta, #0\n"
> +                   "1:     llw     %1, [%6 + $ta]\n"
> +                   "       sub     %3, %1, %4\n"
> +                   "       cmovz   %2, %5, %3\n"
> +                   "       cmovn   %2, %1, %3\n"
> +                   "2:     scw     %2, [%6 + $ta]\n"
> +                   "       beqz    %2, 1b\n"
> +                   "3:\n                   " __futex_atomic_ex_table("%7")
> +                   :"+&r"(ret), "=&r"(val), "=&r"(tmp), "=&r"(flags)
> +                   :"r"(oldval), "r"(newval), "r"(uaddr), "i"(-EFAULT)
> +                   :"$ta", "memory");
> +     smp_mb();
> +
> +     *uval = val;
> +     return ret;
> +}

I see you rely on asm-generic/barrier.h for your barrier definitions, which
suggests that you only need to prevent reordering by the compiler because
you're not SMP. Is that right? If so, using smp_mb() is a little weird.

What about DMA transactions? I imagine you might need some extra
instructions for the mandatory barriers there.

Also:

> +static inline void arch_spin_lock(arch_spinlock_t * lock)
> +{
> +     unsigned long tmp;
> +
> +     __asm__ __volatile__("1:\n"
> +                          "\tllw\t%0, [%1]\n"
> +                          "\tbnez\t%0, 1b\n"
> +                          "\tmovi\t%0, #0x1\n"
> +                          "\tscw\t%0, [%1]\n"
> +                          "\tbeqz\t%0, 1b\n"
> +                          :"=&r"(tmp)
> +                          :"r"(&lock->lock)
> +                          :"memory");
> +}

Here it looks like you're eliding an explicit barrier here because you
already have a "memory" clobber. Can't you do the same for the futex code
above?

Will

Reply via email to