On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Catalin Marinas
[off-list ref] wrote:
It's either badly formatted or I don't get it. Are the "stxr x1" and
"stxr x7" happening on the same CPU (P0)? If yes, that's badly written
code, not even architecturally compliant (you are not allowed other
memory accesses between ldxr and stxr).
OK. Is that the same case with ldaxr (acquire) and stlxr (release)?
AFAIK, memory accesses between acquire and release exclusive
operations are allowed.
quoted
The last store exclusive succeeds since the exclusive bit is set which
should not happen. Clearing the exclusive bit before returning from cmpxchg
prevents this happening.
Now I am not sure how likely this will happen. One can argue that a cmpxchg()
will not happen between an external ldxr/stxr. But isn't clearing the exclusive
bit better?
The only way cmpxchg() could happen between a different ldxr/stxr is
during an interrupt. But ERET automatically clears the exclusive
monitor, so the "stxr x7" would not succeed.
That makes sense. But please consider the ldaxr/stlxr case and let me know.
Thanks!
--
Pranith