| To: | Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: locking problems with mips atomicity ? |
| From: | Harm Verhagen <hverhagen@dse.nl> |
| Date: | 21 Apr 2004 00:53:56 +0200 |
| Cc: | linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| In-reply-to: | <20040420224904.GA21924@nevyn.them.org> |
| Organization: | |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <1082501074.13783.54.camel@node-d-8d2e.a2000.nl> <20040420224904.GA21924@nevyn.them.org> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 00:49, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 12:44:34AM +0200, Harm Verhagen wrote:
> > The code from linux 2.4.26 arch-mips/atomic.h looks _very_ similar to
> > the code described in the thread that has a BUG.
> >
> > static __inline__ void atomic_add(int i, atomic_t * v)
> > {
> > unsigned long temp;
> >
> > __asm__ __volatile__(
> > "1: ll %0, %1 # atomic_add\n"
> > " addu %0, %2 \n"
> > " sc %0, %1 \n"
> > " beqz %0, 1b \n"
> > : "=&r" (temp), "=m" (v->counter)
> > : "Ir" (i), "m" (v->counter));
> > }
> >
> > So I wonder if there is a bug here.
> > Can some MIPS guru check ? :)
>
> It won't be a problem in the kernel. The problem only happens when the
> assembler expands a macro to multiple instructions including a load,
> and that only happens for position-independent code; the kernel is not
> PIC.
Sorry for not understanding completely. What makes the gcc code PIC
then? The code looks similar, an inline function with inline assembly.
Could you elaborate ?
Kind regards,
Harm
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: locking problems with mips atomicity ?, Daniel Jacobowitz |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: locking problems with mips atomicity ?, Daniel Jacobowitz |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: locking problems with mips atomicity ?, Daniel Jacobowitz |
| Next by Thread: | Re: locking problems with mips atomicity ?, Daniel Jacobowitz |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |