[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160105163429-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:38:54 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 17/32] arm: define __smp_xxx
On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 01:59:34PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 02:54:20PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 02:36:58PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 11:12:44AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Jan 02, 2016 at 11:24:38AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > >
> > > > > My only concern is that it gives people an additional handle onto a
> > > > > "new" set of barriers - just because they're prefixed with __*
> > > > > unfortunately doesn't stop anyone from using it (been there with
> > > > > other arch stuff before.)
> > > > >
> > > > > I wonder whether we should consider making the smp memory barriers
> > > > > inline functions, so these __smp_xxx() variants can be undef'd
> > > > > afterwards, thereby preventing drivers getting their hands on these
> > > > > new macros?
> > > >
> > > > That'd be tricky to do cleanly since asm-generic depends on
> > > > ifndef to add generic variants where needed.
> > > >
> > > > But it would be possible to add a checkpatch test for this.
> > >
> > > Wasn't the whole purpose of these things for 'drivers' (namely
> > > virtio/xen hypervisor interaction) to use these?
> >
> > Ah, I see, you add virt_*mb() stuff later on for that use case.
> >
> > So, assuming everybody does include asm-generic/barrier.h, you could
> > simply #undef the __smp version at the end of that, once we've generated
> > all the regular primitives from it, no?
>
> Not so simple - that's why I mentioned using inline functions.
>
> The new smp_* _macros_ are:
>
> +#define smp_mb() __smp_mb()
>
> which means if we simply #undef __smp_mb(), smp_mb() then points at
> something which is no longer available, and we'll end up with errors
> saying that __smp_mb() doesn't exist.
>
> My suggestion was to change:
>
> #ifndef smp_mb
> #define smp_mb() __smp_mb()
> #endif
>
> to:
>
> #ifndef smp_mb
> static inline void smp_mb(void)
> {
> __smp_mb();
> }
> #endif
>
> which then means __smp_mb() and friends can be #undef'd afterwards.
Absolutely, I got it.
The issue is that e.g. tile has:
#define __smp_mb__after_atomic() do { } while (0)
and this is cheaper than barrier().
For this reason I left
#define smp_mb__after_atomic() __smp_mb__after_atomic()
in place there.
Now, of course I can do (in asm-generic):
#ifndef smp_mb__after_atomic
static inline void smp_mb__after_atomic(void)
{
...
}
#endif
but this seems ugly: architectures do defines, generic
version does inline.
And that is not all: APIs like smp_store_mb can take
a variety of types as arguments so they pretty much
must be implemented as macros.
Teaching checkpatch.pl to complain about it seems like the cleanest
approach.
> --
> RMK's Patch system: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/
> FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
> according to speedtest.net.
--
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