[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160104140509.GB6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 15:05:09 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-metag@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
x86@...nel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
adi-buildroot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 31/32] sh: support a 2-byte smp_store_mb
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 09:09:47PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> At the moment, xchg on sh only supports 4 and 1 byte values, so using it
> from smp_store_mb means attempts to store a 2 byte value using this
> macro fail.
>
> And happens to be exactly what virtio drivers want to do.
>
> Check size and fall back to a slower, but safe, WRITE_ONCE+smp_mb.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
> ---
> arch/sh/include/asm/barrier.h | 10 +++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/sh/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/sh/include/asm/barrier.h
> index f887c64..0cc5735 100644
> --- a/arch/sh/include/asm/barrier.h
> +++ b/arch/sh/include/asm/barrier.h
> @@ -32,7 +32,15 @@
> #define ctrl_barrier() __asm__ __volatile__ ("nop;nop;nop;nop;nop;nop;nop;nop")
> #endif
>
> -#define __smp_store_mb(var, value) do { (void)xchg(&var, value); } while (0)
> +#define __smp_store_mb(var, value) do { \
> + if (sizeof(var) != 4 && sizeof(var) != 1) { \
> + WRITE_ONCE(var, value); \
> + __smp_mb(); \
> + } else { \
> + (void)xchg(&var, value); \
> + } \
> +} while (0)
So SH is an orphaned arch, which is also why I did not comment on using
xchg() for the UP smp_store_mb() thing.
But I really think we should try fixing the xchg() implementation
instead of this duct-tape.
--
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