[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231019090733.GR33217@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:07:33 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.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 Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 03:40:05PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 at 14:40, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > The ones in "raw" form are not IRQ safe and these are implemented
> > without volatile qualifier.
>
> You are misreading it.
>
> Both *are* irq safe - on x86.
Stronger, x86 arch code very much relies on them being NMI-safe. Which
makes the generic implementation insufficient.
They *must* be single RmW instructions on x86.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists