[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <8fea3494-1d1f-4f64-b525-279152cf430b@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2023 17:50:00 +0100
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To: "Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Boqun Feng" <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@....net>,
"Will Deacon" <will@...nel.org>,
"Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@....com>, dennis@...nel.org,
"Tejun Heo" <tj@...nel.org>, "Christoph Lameter" <cl@...ux.com>,
"Heiko Carstens" <hca@...ux.ibm.com>, gor@...ux.ibm.com,
"Alexander Gordeev" <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com, svens@...ux.ibm.com,
"Herbert Xu" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de>,
"Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, joro@...tes.org,
suravee.suthikulpanit@....com,
"Robin Murphy" <robin.murphy@....com>, dwmw2@...radead.org,
baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...nel.org>,
"David Rientjes" <rientjes@...gle.com>,
"Joonsoo Kim" <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Vlastimil Babka" <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"Roman Gushchin" <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
"Hyeonggon Yoo" <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux.dev, Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 05/12] arch: Introduce arch_{,try_}_cmpxchg128{,_local}()
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023, at 17:19, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 02:03:37PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 01:25:35PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 12:08:16PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> ... makes GCC much happier:
>
>> ... I'll go check whether clang is happy with that, and how far back that can
>> go, otherwise we'll need to blat the high half with a separate constaint that
>> (ideally) doesn't end up allocating a pointless address register.
>
> Hmm... from the commit history it looks like GCC prior to 5.1 might not be
> happy with that, but that *might* just be if we actually do arithmetic on the
> value, and we might be ok just using it for memroy effects. I can't currently
> get such an old GCC to run on my machines so I haven't been able to check.
gcc-5.1 is the oldest (barely) supported compiler, the minimum was
last raised from gcc-4.9 in linux-5.15. If only gcc-4.9 and older are
affected, we're good on mainline but may still want a fix for stable
kernels.
I checked that the cross-compiler binaries from [1] still work, but I noticed
that this version is missing the native aarch64-to-aarch64 compiler (x86 to
aarch64 and vice versa are there), and you need to install libmpfr4 [2]
as a dependency. The newer compilers (6.5.0 and up) don't have these problems.
Arnd
[1] https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/arm64/5.5.0/
[2] http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/pool/main/m/mpfr4/libmpfr4_3.1.5-1_arm64.deb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists