[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <066A48B7-296F-4953-89A6-588509FC0303@amacapital.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 13:01:08 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 6/6] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by kernel parameter
> On Nov 21, 2019, at 11:56 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 09:51:03AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> Can we really not just change the lock asm to use 32-bit accesses for
>> set_bit(), etc? Sure, it will fail if the bit index is greater than
>> 2^32, but that seems nuts.
>
> There are 64bit architectures that do exactly that: Alpha, IA64.
>
> And because of the byte 'optimization' from x86 we already could not
> rely on word atomicity (we actually play games with multi-bit atomicity
> for PG_waiters and clear_bit_unlock_is_negative_byte).
I read a couple pages of the paper you linked and I didn’t spot what you’re talking about as it refers to x86. What are the relevant word properties of x86 bitops or the byte optimization?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists