[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c3e507cb-26bb-4fdc-b1dc-b512c7bfc093@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 11:47:39 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Philipp Stanner <pstanner@...hat.com>,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>,
Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
kent.overstreet@...il.com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, elver@...gle.com,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
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>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [WIP 0/3] Memory model and atomic API in Rust
On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 06:03:11PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 09:55:23AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 05:02:37PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > In my ideal world, the compiler would turn this into:
> > >
> > > newfolio->flags |= folio->flags & MIGRATE_MASK;
> >
> > Why not accumulate the changes in a mask, and then apply the mask the
> > one time? (In situations where __folio_set_foo() need not apply.)
>
> Yes, absolutely, we can, should and probably eventually will do this
> when it gets to the top of somebody's todo list. But it irks me that
> we can't tell the compiler this is a safe transformation for it to make.
> There are a number of places where similar things happen.
>
> $ git grep folio_test.*folio_test
>
> will find you 82 of them (where they happen to be on the same line)
>
> if (folio_test_dirty(folio) || folio_test_locked(folio) ||
> folio_test_writeback(folio))
> break;
>
> turns into:
>
> 1f41: 48 8b 29 mov (%rcx),%rbp
> 1f44: 48 c1 ed 04 shr $0x4,%rbp
> 1f48: 83 e5 01 and $0x1,%ebp
> 1f4b: 0f 85 d5 00 00 00 jne 2026 <filemap_range_has_writeback+0x1a6>
> 1f51: 48 8b 29 mov (%rcx),%rbp
> 1f54: 83 e5 01 and $0x1,%ebp
> 1f57: 0f 85 c9 00 00 00 jne 2026 <filemap_range_has_writeback+0x1a6>
> 1f5d: 48 8b 29 mov (%rcx),%rbp
> 1f60: 48 d1 ed shr $1,%rbp
> 1f63: 83 e5 01 and $0x1,%ebp
> 1f66: 0f 85 ba 00 00 00 jne 2026 <filemap_range_has_writeback+0x1a6>
>
> rather than _one_ load from rcx and a test against a mask.
Agreed, it would be nice if we could convince the compiler to do this
for us, preferably without breaking anything.
> > If it turns out that we really do need a not-quite-volatile, what exactly
> > does it do? You clearly want it to be able to be optimized so as to merge
> > similar accesses. Is there a limit to the number of accesses that can
> > be merged or to the region of code over which such merging is permitted?
> > Either way, how is the compiler informed of these limits?
>
> Right, like I said, it's not going to be easy to define exactly what we
> want.
Or to convince the usual suspects that any definition we might come up
with is useful/implementable/teacheable/... :-/
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists