conceptually, a_spin needs to be at least a compiler barrier, so the
compiler will not optimize out loops (and the load on each iteration)
while spinning. it should also be a memory barrier, or the spinning
thread might keep spinning without noticing stores from other threads,
thus delaying for longer than it should.
ideally, an optimal a_spin implementation that avoids unnecessary
cache/memory contention should be chosen for each arch, but for now,
the easiest thing is to perform a useless a_cas on the calling
thread's stack.
at the very least, a compiler barrier is required no matter what, and
that was missing. current or1k implementations have strong ordering,
but this is not guaranteed as part of the ISA, so some sort of
synchronizing operation is necessary.
in principle we should use l.msync, but due to misinterpretation of
the spec, it was wrongly treated as an optional instruction and is not
supported by some implementations. if future kernels trap it and treat
it as a nop (rather than illegal instruction) when the
hardware/emulator does not support it, we could consider using it.
in the absence of l.msync support, the l.lwa/l.swa instructions, which
are specified to have a built-in l.msync, need to be used. the easiest
way to use them to implement atomic store is to perform an atomic swap
and throw away the result. using compare-and-swap would be lighter,
and would probably be sufficient for all actual usage cases, but
checking this is difficult and error-prone:
with store implemented in terms of swap, it's guaranteed that, when
another atomic operation is performed at the same time as the store,
either the result of the store followed by the other operation, or
just the store (clobbering the other operation's result) is seen. if
store were implemented in terms of cas, there are cases where this
invariant would fail to hold, and we would need detailed rules for the
situations in which the store operation is well-defined.
With the exception of a fenv implementation, the port is fully featured.
The port has been tested in or1ksim, the golden reference functional
simulator for OpenRISC 1000.
It passes all libc-test tests (except the math tests that
requires a fenv implementation).
The port assumes an or1k implementation that has support for
atomic instructions (l.lwa/l.swa).
Although it passes all the libc-test tests, the port is still
in an experimental state, and has yet experienced very little
'real-world' use.
this port assumes eabi calling conventions, eabi linux syscall
convention, and presence of the kernel helpers at 0xffff0f?0 needed
for threads support. otherwise it makes very few assumptions, and the
code should work even on armv4 without thumb support, as well as on
systems with thumb interworking. the bits headers declare this a
little endian system, but as far as i can tell the code should work
equally well on big endian.
some small details are probably broken; so far, testing has been
limited to qemu/aboriginal linux.
Rich Felker
Stefan Kristiansson
rofl0r
Richard Pennington