[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190524114220.GA4260@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 12:42:20 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aou@...s.berkeley.edu, arnd@...db.de,
bp@...en8.de, catalin.marinas@....com, davem@...emloft.net,
fenghua.yu@...el.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, ink@...assic.park.msu.ru,
jhogan@...nel.org, linux@...linux.org.uk, mattst88@...il.com,
mingo@...nel.org, mpe@...erman.id.au, palmer@...ive.com,
paul.burton@...s.com, paulus@...ba.org, ralf@...ux-mips.org,
rth@...ddle.net, stable@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
tony.luck@...el.com, vgupta@...opsys.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, jhansen@...are.com, vdasa@...are.com,
aditr@...are.com, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] locking/atomic: atomic64 type cleanup
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 01:18:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 12:37:31PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:19:26AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > > [mark@...rids:~/src/linux]% git grep '\(return\|=\)\s\+atomic\(64\)\?_set'
> > > include/linux/vmw_vmci_defs.h: return atomic_set((atomic_t *)var, (u32)new_val);
> > > include/linux/vmw_vmci_defs.h: return atomic64_set(var, new_val);
> > >
> >
> > Oh boy, what a load of crap you just did find.
> >
> > How about something like the below? I've not read how that buffer is
> > used, but the below preserves all broken without using atomic*_t.
>
> Clarified by something along these lines?
>
> ---
> Documentation/atomic_t.txt | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> index dca3fb0554db..125c95ddbbc0 100644
> --- a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> @@ -83,6 +83,9 @@ The non-RMW ops are (typically) regular LOADs and STOREs and are canonically
> implemented using READ_ONCE(), WRITE_ONCE(), smp_load_acquire() and
> smp_store_release() respectively.
>
Not sure you need a new paragraph here.
> +Therefore, if you find yourself only using the Non-RMW operations of atomic_t,
> +you do not in fact need atomic_t at all and are doing it wrong.
> +
That makes sense to me, although I now find that the sentence below is a bit
confusing because it sounds like it's a caveat relating to only using
Non-RMW ops.
> The one detail to this is that atomic_set{}() should be observable to the RMW
> ops. That is:
How about changing this to be:
"A subtle detail of atomic_set{}() is that it should be observable..."
With that:
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists