LDREX/STREX and pre-emption on SMP hardware

On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 08:44 -0700, Catalin Marinas wrote:

On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 14:29 -0700, David Xiao wrote:

quoted

The DDI0406A ARM V7 Architecture Reference Manual (section A3.4.1) seems
to indicate that the exclusive monitor is tagging/matching the physical
memory address accessed by the LDREX/STREX instructions.

And in the same document (section A3.4.5), it seems to suggest that the
reason we need to do CLREX during the context switch is that because the
IsExclusiveLocal() implementation does not have to do memory
address/size check, but just the exclusive state check.

Yes, that's correct. And the reason we don't need this in interrupt
handlers is that we would never call a STREX without a preceding LDREX
or just a LDREX without a being followed by a STREX and interrupt
handlers are in the worst case nested rather than freely preemptible.

If an IRQ handler is registered with IRQF_DISABLED, then the handling of
this IRQ will not be preempted by any other IRQ handlers; however, if it
is not using that flag, which is the common case, that IRQ handler could
be interrupted/preempted by another different IRQ handler though.

Meanwhile, if we could assume that interrupt handlers are always using
the LDREX/CLREX in pairs, then the same thing could be assumed for any
other contexts in the system, kernel/user threads. Therefore, I do not
think that we can make that assumption.
  
Given that, I think we need to add the same CLREX for the switching of
the ISR context as well.

David