linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] locking/atomics: Simplify the op definitions in atomic.h some more

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <mhng-a03fd04a-0f6e-4e5a-a74a-3395a6f63f3d@palmer-si-x1c4>
Date:   Fri, 18 May 2018 11:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
To:     mingo@...nel.org
CC:     andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com, mark.rutland@....com,
        peterz@...radead.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aryabinin@...tuozzo.com,
        boqun.feng@...il.com, catalin.marinas@....com, dvyukov@...gle.com,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, paulmck@...ibm.com,
        a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject:     Re: [PATCH] locking/atomics: Simplify the op definitions in atomic.h some more

On Sun, 06 May 2018 07:57:27 PDT (-0700), mingo@...nel.org wrote:
>
> * Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ingo,
>>
>> > From 5affbf7e91901143f84f1b2ca64f4afe70e210fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> > From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
>> > Date: Sat, 5 May 2018 10:23:23 +0200
>> > Subject: [PATCH] locking/atomics: Simplify the op definitions in atomic.h some more
>> >
>> > Before:
>> >
>> >  #ifndef atomic_fetch_dec_relaxed
>> >  # ifndef atomic_fetch_dec
>> >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec(v)			atomic_fetch_sub(1, (v))
>> >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_relaxed(v)		atomic_fetch_sub_relaxed(1, (v))
>> >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_acquire(v)		atomic_fetch_sub_acquire(1, (v))
>> >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_release(v)		atomic_fetch_sub_release(1, (v))
>> >  # else
>> >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_relaxed		atomic_fetch_dec
>> >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_acquire		atomic_fetch_dec
>> >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_release		atomic_fetch_dec
>> >  # endif
>> >  #else
>> >  # ifndef atomic_fetch_dec_acquire
>> >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_acquire(...)	__atomic_op_acquire(atomic_fetch_dec, __VA_ARGS__)
>> >  # endif
>> >  # ifndef atomic_fetch_dec_release
>> >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_release(...)	__atomic_op_release(atomic_fetch_dec, __VA_ARGS__)
>> >  # endif
>> >  # ifndef atomic_fetch_dec
>> >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec(...)		__atomic_op_fence(atomic_fetch_dec, __VA_ARGS__)
>> >  # endif
>> >  #endif
>> >
>> > After:
>> >
>> >  #ifndef atomic_fetch_dec_relaxed
>> >  # ifndef atomic_fetch_dec
>> >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec(v)			atomic_fetch_sub(1, (v))
>> >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_relaxed(v)		atomic_fetch_sub_relaxed(1, (v))
>> >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_acquire(v)		atomic_fetch_sub_acquire(1, (v))
>> >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_release(v)		atomic_fetch_sub_release(1, (v))
>> >  # else
>> >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_relaxed		atomic_fetch_dec
>> >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_acquire		atomic_fetch_dec
>> >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_release		atomic_fetch_dec
>> >  # endif
>> >  #else
>> >  # ifndef atomic_fetch_dec
>> >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec(...)		__atomic_op_fence(atomic_fetch_dec, __VA_ARGS__)
>> >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_acquire(...)	__atomic_op_acquire(atomic_fetch_dec, __VA_ARGS__)
>> >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_release(...)	__atomic_op_release(atomic_fetch_dec, __VA_ARGS__)
>> >  # endif
>> >  #endif
>> >
>> > The idea is that because we already group these APIs by certain defines
>> > such as atomic_fetch_dec_relaxed and atomic_fetch_dec in the primary
>> > branches - we can do the same in the secondary branch as well.
>> >
>> > ( Also remove some unnecessarily duplicate comments, as the API
>> >   group defines are now pretty much self-documenting. )
>> >
>> > No change in functionality.
>> >
>> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>> > Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
>> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
>> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>> > Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
>> > Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>> > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
>>
>> This breaks compilation on RISC-V. (For some of its atomics, the arch
>> currently defines the _relaxed and the full variants and it relies on
>> the generic definitions for the _acquire and the _release variants.)
>
> I don't have cross-compilation for RISC-V, which is a relatively new arch.
> (Is there any RISC-V set of cross-compilation tools on kernel.org somewhere?)

Arnd added RISC-V to the cross compiler list a month or two ago when he updated 
them all.  I use the "make.cross" script from the Intel test robot, which will 
fetch the cross compilers for you.  It looks like I made a Git Hub pull request 
to update the script for RISC-V, it fetches from kernel.org

    https://github.com/palmer-dabbelt/lkp-tests/blob/e14f4236ccd0572f4b87ffd480fecefee412dedc/sbin/make.cross
    http://cdn.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/
    http://cdn.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/x86_64/7.3.0/x86_64-gcc-7.3.0-nolibc_riscv64-linux.tar.gz

> Could you please send a patch that defines those variants against Linus's tree,
> like the PowerPC patch that does something similar:
>
>   0476a632cb3a: locking/atomics/powerpc: Move cmpxchg helpers to asm/cmpxchg.h and define the full set of cmpxchg APIs
>
> ?
>
> ... and I'll integrate it into the proper place to make it all bisectable, etc.

Sorry, I got buried in email again.  Did this get merged, or is there a current 
version of the patch set I should look at?