On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 09:14 +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 19:53 +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 19:47 +0800, huang ying wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 10:18 +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> cmpxchg has been used in that way by ftrace and perf for a long time. So
> > > >> I agree to make it a requirement on future architecture ports.
> > > >
> > > > Neither mandate an architecture do this though, only that when an
> > > > architecture wants to support either feature and has NMIs (not all archs
> > > > have NMI equivalents) it has to be safe.
> > > 
> > > So we can make sure cmpxchg can be used in lock-less code on
> > > architectures with perf, irq_work or ftrace enabled?
> > 
> > It had better, otherwise stuff is broken.
> 
> Take a look at superh architecture cmpxchg implementation. It seems that
> cmpxchg is implemented with special instruction if CONFIG_GUSA_RB=y or
> CONFIG_CPU_SH4A=y, otherwise it is implemented with local_irq_save. Is
> it possible that superh has not PMU support if CONFIG_GUSA_RB=n and
> CONFIG_CPU_SH4A=n, so that perf work properly but no NMI safe cmpxchg in
> that situation?

Dunno, you forgot to CC the author of that code.. I've really no clue
about SH.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/