[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1302191642230.4654@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:11:46 +0000
From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
To: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>
CC: "xen-devel@...ts.xen.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
"Keir (Xen.org)" <keir@....org>, "Tim (Xen.org)" <tim@....org>,
Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH LINUX] xen: event channel arrays are xen_ulong_t and not
unsigned long
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On ARM we want these to be the same size on 32- and 64-bit.
>
> This is an ABI change on ARM. X86 does not change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>
> Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
> Cc: Keir (Xen.org) <keir@....org>
> Cc: Tim Deegan <tim@....org>
> Cc: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> Cc: xen-devel@...ts.xen.org
> ---
> Changes since V1
> use find_first_set not __ffs
> fix some more unsigned long -> xen_ulong_t
> use more generic xchg_xen_ulong instead of ...read_evtchn...
> ---
> arch/arm/include/asm/xen/events.h | 22 ++++++++
> arch/x86/include/asm/xen/events.h | 3 +
> drivers/xen/events.c | 103 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> include/xen/interface/xen.h | 8 ++--
> 4 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)
You might have to rebase this patch: it doesn't apply on Linux 3.8.
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/xen/events.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/xen/events.h
> index 94b4e90..9bb5f50 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/xen/events.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/xen/events.h
> @@ -15,4 +15,26 @@ static inline int xen_irqs_disabled(struct pt_regs *regs)
> return raw_irqs_disabled_flags(regs->ARM_cpsr);
> }
>
> +/*
> + * We cannot use xchg because it does not support 8-byte
> + * values. However it is safe to use {ldr,dtd}exd directly because all
> + * platforms which Xen can run on support those instructions.
> + */
> +static inline xen_ulong_t xchg_xen_ulong(xen_ulong_t *ptr, xen_ulong_t val)
> +{
> + xen_ulong_t oldval;
> + unsigned int tmp;
> +
> + wmb();
> + asm volatile("@ read_evtchn_pending_sel\n"
^ do we need this?
> + "1: ldrexd %0, %H0, [%3]\n"
> + " strexd %1, %2, %H2, [%3]\n"
> + " teq %1, #0\n"
> + " bne 1b"
> + : "=&r" (oldval), "=&r" (tmp)
> + : "r" (val), "r" (ptr)
> + : "memory", "cc");
> + return oldval;
> +}
> +
> #endif /* _ASM_ARM_XEN_EVENTS_H */
[...]
> @@ -1295,18 +1306,14 @@ static void __xen_evtchn_do_upcall(void)
> unsigned count;
>
> do {
> - unsigned long pending_words;
> + xen_ulong_t pending_words;
>
> vcpu_info->evtchn_upcall_pending = 0;
>
> if (__this_cpu_inc_return(xed_nesting_count) - 1)
> goto out;
>
> -#ifndef CONFIG_X86 /* No need for a barrier -- XCHG is a barrier on x86. */
> - /* Clear master flag /before/ clearing selector flag. */
> - wmb();
> -#endif
Even though I understand that moving wmb() into xchg_xen_ulong gets rid
of an ugly ifndef, I am not sure whether it is a good thing from the
code readability point of view. I'll let Konrad decide on this one.
> - pending_words = xchg(&vcpu_info->evtchn_pending_sel, 0);
> + pending_words = xchg_xen_ulong(&vcpu_info->evtchn_pending_sel, 0);
>
> start_word_idx = __this_cpu_read(current_word_idx);
> start_bit_idx = __this_cpu_read(current_bit_idx);
> @@ -1314,8 +1321,8 @@ static void __xen_evtchn_do_upcall(void)
> word_idx = start_word_idx;
>
> for (i = 0; pending_words != 0; i++) {
> - unsigned long pending_bits;
> - unsigned long words;
> + xen_ulong_t pending_bits;
> + xen_ulong_t words;
>
> words = MASK_LSBS(pending_words, word_idx);
>
> @@ -1327,7 +1334,7 @@ static void __xen_evtchn_do_upcall(void)
> bit_idx = 0;
> continue;
> }
> - word_idx = __ffs(words);
> + word_idx = find_first_bit(BM(&words), sizeof(words));
>
> pending_bits = active_evtchns(cpu, s, word_idx);
> bit_idx = 0; /* usually scan entire word from start */
is that because find_first_bit can actually cope with a bit number >=
32 and __ffs can't?
In that case it is worth adding a comment somewhere in this file,
reminding people to only use bit operations that can handle size >
unsigned long
--
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