[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <28B9471C-4FB0-4AB0-81DD-4885C3645E95@vmware.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 16:03:01 +0000
From: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -tip] x86/percpu: Use C for arch_raw_cpu_ptr()
> On Oct 18, 2023, at 6:17 PM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com> wrote:
>
> I am more thinking of moving the ifdeffery to percpu.h, something like
> the attached part of the patch. This would handle all current and
> future stable percpu variables.
I think that for consistency this_cpu_read_stable() should always be an
rvalue, so instead of:
> #define this_cpu_read_stable(pcp) const_##pcp
You would use a statement expression:
#define this_cpu_read_stable(pcp) ({ const_##pcp; })
This would match the other (existing/fallback) definition of
this_cpu_read_stable.
Having said that, I am not sure what other usages you have in mind.
“current” is a pretty obvious straight forward case with considerable
impact on code generation. There may be additional variables, but it is
likely that there would be more functions/TU in which they would not be
constant and would require more refined techniques to avoid mistakes
such as the use of stale cached values.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists