On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 09:34 +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: > On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 10:22 PM, David Brownell <davi...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > So there's no strong reason to think this is > > actually "ggeneric". Function names no longer > > specify OMAP, but without other hardware under > > the interface, calling it "generic" reflects > > more optimism than reality. (That was the > > implication of my observations...) > > Well, it's not omap-specific anymore.
You haven't (and evidently can't) show non-OMAP hardware under your calls, though ... so in a practical sense, it's still OMAP-specific code (since nothing else is working). (And for that matter, what non-OMAP code should try using these locks??) Your intent "generic" is fine, but you've not achieved it and thus I think you shouldn't imply that you have. Dropping the word "generic" should suffice; it _is_ a framework, and maybe the next person working with hardware spinlocks can finish generalizing (and add use cases). > > To find other hardware spinlocks, you might be > > able to look at fault tolerant multiprocessors. (For much the same reasons as the various ASMP chips care about HW spinlocks:... SMP can use pure software spinlocks, but when there are special hardware (or system) circumstances, they may not be sufficiently robust/ or reliable. (Consider just the impact of differeent memory and caching models, ARM vs DSP in the OMAP case. Non-Academic specs on fault tolerant computers may be hard to come by, unfortunately ... They're very specialized and often have lots of funky proprietary logic that vendors don't want reverse-engineered. Hardware voting is just the start. The software to make the fault tolerance robust/reliable gets to be very tricky ... and without it, why bother with expensive hardware mechanisms. The same issues come up with aerospace and some industrial systems, where reliability affects mission-readiness and, for industrial apps, safety. > > Ages ago I worked with one of those, where any > > spinlock failures integrated with CPU/OS fault > > detection; HW cwould yank (checkpointed) CPU boards > > off the bus so they could be recovered (some > > might continue later from checkpoints, etc.)... > > Is that HW supported by Linux today ? Not mainline, and unlikely any branch. Fault tolerant operating systems can't be as simple as Linux, and I think that trying to add fault tolerance to it would not only turn it into a very different animal, but would lose most developers. (The mantra I recall was "No single Point Failures". Linux has lots of such failure modes, and removing them would be a multi-year effort, even just inside the kernel. (How would you recover from a bus failure? Fan failure? Power supply death? (All such hardware must be duplicated, with recovery supported by both hardware and software...) (Where "recover" includes "keep running without losing data or other computations.) (Last I knew, Linux didn't even have much support for checkpoint and restore of kernel state ... hibernation is related, but seems to be constantly in flux. (Don't think it's aiming to tolerate CPU failures after a hibernation checkpoint either. (Heck ... on my Ubuntu, "Network Manager" isn't even competent to switch over cleanly from Ethernet to WLAN (and don't get me talking about other ways it's broken. LOTS of stupid fault handling, and that's arguably mission-critical for the whole system ... multiple single point failure modes. That's FAR from fault-tolerant. > Any chance you can share a link or any other info about it ? I googled for "sequoia systems fault tolerance" and found some stuff that looked like it summarized some of the original hardware. I can't think, off the top of my head, of other kinds of system that need and use hardware spinlocks, but likely they do exist. (Mainframe tech might use them too, as part of the subset of fault-tolerant HW tech they build on. If you want to provide a "generic" framework you should find and support some (or Tom-Sawyer such support... :) > > > > > I seem to recall some iterations of the real-time patches doing a lot of > > work to generalize spinlocks, since they needed multiple variants. It > > might be worth following in those footsteps. (Though I'm not sure they > > were thinking much about hardware support . > > Any chance you can point me at a specific discussion or patchset that > you feel may be relevant ? Haven't looked at RT in a long time. Just look at the current RT patchset to see if it still has several spinlock variants. ISTR the "raw" spinlock stuff came from there not long ago. Much compile-time magic was involved in switching between variants. - Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html