On 14/06/2017 12:40, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 12:35:07PM +0100, John Garry wrote:
On 14/06/2017 12:01, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:42:30AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:06:58AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
Apologies, I misunderstood your algorithm (I thought step (a) was on one CPU
and step (b) was on another). Still, I don't understand the need for the
timeout. If you instead read back the flag immediately, wouldn't it still
work? e.g.


lock:
 Readl_relaxed flag
 if (locked)
   goto lock;

 Writel_relaxed unique ID to flag
 Readl flag
 if (locked by somebody else)
   goto lock;

<critical section>

unlock:
 Writel unlocked value to flag


Given that we're dealing with iomem, I think it will work, but I could be
missing something obvious.

Don't we have the race below where both threads can enter the critical
section?

        // flag f initial zero (unlocked)

        // t1, flag 1                   // t2, flag 2
        readl(f); // reads 0            l = readl(f); // reads 0

        <thinks lock is free>             <thinks lock is free>

        writel(1, f);
        readl(f); // reads 1
        <thinks lock owned>
                                        writel(2, f);
                                        readl(f) // reads 2
                                        <thinks lock owned>

        <crticial section>                <critical section>

Urgh, yeah, of course and *that's* what the udelay is trying to avoid,
by "ensuring" that the <thinks lock is free> time and subsequent write
propagation is all over before we re-read the flag.

John -- how much space do you have on this device? Do you have, e.g. a byte
for each CPU?

Hi Will,

To be clear, the agents in our case are the kernel and UEFI. Within the
kernel, we use a kernel spinlock to lock the same djtag between threads, for
these reasons:
- kernel has a native spinlock

If we only have to effectively deal with two threads, then we might be able
to use something like Dekker's.

- we are limited in locking values, as the lock flag is only a 8b field in
v2 hw (called module select)

By 8b do you mean 8 bits or 8 bytes? If the latter, does it support sub-word
accesses?

8 bits

So the size depends: on v1 hw is a 6-bit field in a 32-bit register (recent news to me), and on v2 hw it is a 8-bit field in a 32-bit register.

So for reading and writing the flag, we use readl/writel and also necessary shifts+masks. Obviously this is not atomic, but the whole process of write-and-check is not atomic - hence the delay.

I am not sure if sub-word access is required.

Thanks,
John


Will

.



Reply via email to