linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] locking/qspinlock: Add ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS

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: <20210331123107.GF1171117@lianli.shorne-pla.net>
Date:   Wed, 31 Mar 2021 21:31:07 +0900
From:   Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-csky@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] locking/qspinlock: Add
 ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS_XCHG32

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 09:23:27AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 12:35 AM Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > I just want to chime in here, there may be a better spot in the thread to
> > mention this but, for OpenRISC I did implement some generic 8/16-bit xchg code
> > which I have on my todo list somwhere to replace the other generic
> > implementations like that in mips.
> >
> >   arch/openrisc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h
> >
> > The idea would be that architectures just implement these methods:
> >
> >   long cmpxchg_u32(*ptr,old,new)
> >   long xchg_u32(*ptr,val)
> >
> > Then the rest of the generic header would implement cmpxchg.
> 
> I like the idea of generalizing it a little further. I'd suggest staying a
> little closer to the existing naming here though, as we already have
> cmpxchg() for the type-agnostic version, and cmpxchg64() for the
> fixed-length 64-bit version.

OK.

> I think a nice interface between architecture-specific and architecture
> independent code would be to have architectures provide
> arch_cmpxchg32()/arch_xchg32() as the most basic version, as well
> as arch_cmpxchg8()/arch_cmpxchg16()/arch_xchg8()/arch_xchg16()
> if they have instructions for those.

Thanks for the name suggestions, it makes it easier for me.

> The common code can then build cmpxchg16()/xchg16() on top of
> either the 16-bit or the 32-bit primitives, and build the cmpxchg()/xchg()
> wrapper around those (or alternatively we can decide to have them
> only deal with fixed-32-bit and long/pointer sized atomics).

Yeah, that was the idea.

-Stafford