[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180611080314.GR12258@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 10:03:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/9] x86: alternatives: macrofy locks for better
inlining
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 07:19:06AM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +.macro LOCK_PREFIX_HERE
> .pushsection .smp_locks,"a"
> .balign 4
> + .long 671f - . # offset
> .popsection
> +671:
> +.endm
> +
> +.macro LOCK_PREFIX insn:vararg
> + LOCK_PREFIX_HERE
> + lock \insn
> +.endm
Hurmph, the only reason we need to preserve that LOCK_PREFIX_HERE thing
is arch_cmpxchg64 in cmpxchg_32.h. Is there really no other way we can
write that one?
I suppose the problem with using LOCK_PREFIX inside the alternative is
that the .smp_locks fixup address gets computed wrong (inside the
alternative_text section instead of in the regular text)?
Oh well..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists