[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <efcabc9410cf4d03b203749a02e5a935@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 15:32:04 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Segher Boessenkool' <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
CC: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v1 1/2] powerpc/bitops: Use immediate operand when
possible
From: Segher Boessenkool
> Sent: 14 April 2021 16:19
...
> > Could the kernel use GCC builtin atomic functions instead ?
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/_005f_005fatomic-Builtins.html
>
> Certainly that should work fine for the simpler cases that the atomic
> operations are meant to provide. But esp. for not-so-simple cases the
> kernel may require some behaviour provided by the existing assembler
> implementation, and not by the atomic builtins.
>
> I'm not saying this cannot work, just that some serious testing will be
> needed. If it works it should be the best of all worlds, so then it is
> a really good idea yes :-)
I suspect they just add an extra layer of abstraction that makes it
even more difficult to verify and could easily get broken by a compiler
update (etc).
The other issue is that the code needs to be correct with compiled
with (for example) -O0.
That could very easily break anything except the asm implementation
if additional memory accesses and/or increased code size cause grief.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists