[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240614095124.GN8774@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 11:51:24 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, 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>,
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>, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
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>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
dakr@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] rust: sync: Add atomic support
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 09:30:26AM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> We can always add a layer on top of what we have here to provide the
> generic `Atomic<T>`. However, I personally don't think generic
> `Atomic<T>` is a good idea, for a few reasons:
>
> * I'm not sure it will bring benefits to users, the current atomic
> users in kernel are pretty specific on the size of atomic they
> use, so they want to directly use AtomicI32 or AtomicI64 in
> their type definitions rather than use a `Atomic<T>` where their
> users can provide type later.
>
> * I can also see the future where we have different APIs on
> different types of atomics, for example, we could have a:
>
> impl AtomicI64 {
> pub fn split(&self) -> (&AtomicI32, &AtomicI32)
> }
>
> which doesn't exist for AtomicI32. Note this is not a UB because
> we write our atomic implementation in asm, so it's perfectly
> fine for mix-sized atomics.
>
> So let's start with some basic and simple until we really have a need
> for generic `Atomic<T>`. Thoughts?
Not on the generic thing, but on the lack of long. atomic_long_t is
often used when we have pointers with extra bits on. Then you want a
number type in order to be able to manipulate the low bits.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists