[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1343335169.32120.18.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 22:39:29 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] page-table walkers vs memory order
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 14:51 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> I do love the status quo, but an audit would be welcome. When
> it comes to patches, personally I tend to prefer ACCESS_ONCE() and
> smp_read_barrier_depends() and accompanying comments to be hidden away
> in the underlying macros or inlines where reasonable, rather than
> repeated all over; but I may have my priorities wrong on that.
>
>
Yeah, I was being lazy, and I totally forgot to actually look at the
alpha code.
How about we do a generic (cribbed from rcu_dereference):
#define page_table_deref(p) \
({ \
typeof(*p) *______p = (typeof(*p) __force *)ACCESS_ONCE(p);\
smp_read_barrier_depends(); \
((typeof(*p) __force __kernel *)(______p)); \
})
and use that all over to dereference page-tables. That way all this
lives in one place. Granted, I'll have to go edit all arch code, but I
seem to be doing that on a frequent basis anyway :/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists