[Top] [All Lists]

Re: sysmips call and glibc atomic set

To: Ralf Baechle <>
Subject: Re: sysmips call and glibc atomic set
From: Joe deBlaquiere <>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 10:49:33 -0600
Cc: the list <>,,
Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
References: <> <>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22 i686; en-US; m18) Gecko/20001107 Netscape6/6.0
Ralf, firstly, thank you for the answers :)

Ralf Baechle wrote:

Ok, but since the kernel disables MIPS III you're limited to MIPS II anyway ...

This makes sense...

Read the ISA manual; sc will fail if the LL-bit in c0_status is cleared
which will be cleared when the interrupt returns using the eret instruction.

I tried to find a MIPSIII manual from but all I could find was mips32 and mips64 (which are not the same as MIPSII/MIPSIII/MIPSIV).

Not having swap doesn't mean you're safe.  Think of any kind of previously
unmapped page.

Is there a reason why it doesn't just force that page to be mapped first?

QUESTION 2) Wouldn't it be better to pass back the initial value of *arg1 in *arg3 and return zero or negative error code?

The semantics of this syscall were previously defined by Risc/OS and later
on continued to be used by IRIX.

        case MIPS_ATOMIC_SET: {
                /* This is broken in case of page faults and SMP ...
                    Risc/OS faults after maximum 20 tries with EAGAIN.  */
                unsigned int tmp;

                p = (int *) arg1;
                errno = verify_area(VERIFY_WRITE, p, sizeof(*p));
                if (errno)
                        return errno;
                errno = 0;
                errno |= __get_user(tmp, p);
                errno |= __put_user(arg2, p);

                if (errno)
                        return tmp;

                return tmp;             /* This is broken ...  */

QUESTION 3) I notice that the code for this particular case of sysmips has changed recently. The old code looked more like the 'll/sc' version of glibc above. I would think that the 'll/sc' code would be better on SMP systems.

Don't think about SMP without ll/sc.  There's algorithems available for
that but their complexity leaves them a unpractical, theoretical construct.

Is there a good reason why this reverted?

Looking at 2.4.0-test5 I see the ll/sc code, but -test12 doesn't use it. I was just curious at why it was taken out.

Above code will break if the old content of memory has bit 31 set or you take
pagefaults.  The latter problem is a problem even on UP - think multi-

Finally, post such things to one of the MIPS-related mailing lists.  If
you're unlucky nobody of the MIPS'ers might see your posting on l-k.


Joe deBlaquiere
Red Hat, Inc.
307 Wynn Drive
Huntsville AL, 35805
voice : (256)-704-9200
fax   : (256)-837-3839

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>