[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgHE-6z1CYGrZx0XSrPif+s7MuA+JZKCWWL5CvbdqWK+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:22:38 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>, Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
"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>,
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 Thu, 19 Oct 2023 at 11:14, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> But are you really saying this_cpu_read() should not imply READ_ONCE()?
Well, Uros is saying that we may be *forced* to have that implication,
much as I really hate it (and wonder at the competence of a compiler
that forces the code-pessimizing 'volatile').
And the "it's not volatile" is actually our historical behavior. The
volatile really is new, and didn't exist before your commit
b59167ac7baf ("x86/percpu: Fix this_cpu_read()").
So the whole "implies READ_ONCE()" really seems to be due to that
*one* mistake in our percpu sequence locking code.
Yes, it's been that way for 5 years now, but it was the other way
around for the preceding decade....
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists