[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241106114302.GB13801@willie-the-truck>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 11:43:03 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Haris Okanovic <harisokn@...zon.com>
Cc: ankur.a.arora@...cle.com, catalin.marinas@....com,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
pbonzini@...hat.com, wanpengli@...cent.com, vkuznets@...hat.com,
rafael@...nel.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, peterz@...radead.org,
arnd@...db.de, lenb@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
mtosatti@...hat.com, sudeep.holla@....com, cl@...two.org,
misono.tomohiro@...itsu.com, maobibo@...ngson.cn,
joao.m.martins@...cle.com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] arm64: add __READ_ONCE_EX()
On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 12:30:38PM -0600, Haris Okanovic wrote:
> Perform an exclusive load, which atomically loads a word and arms the
> exclusive monitor to enable wfet()/wfe() accelerated polling.
>
> https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dht0008/a/arm-synchronization-primitives/exclusive-accesses/exclusive-monitors
>
> Signed-off-by: Haris Okanovic <harisokn@...zon.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/readex.h | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/asm/readex.h
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/readex.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/readex.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..51963c3107e1
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/readex.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> +/*
> + * Based on arch/arm64/include/asm/rwonce.h
> + *
> + * Copyright (C) 2020 Google LLC.
> + * Copyright (C) 2024 Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
> + */
> +
> +#ifndef __ASM_READEX_H
> +#define __ASM_READEX_H
> +
> +#define __LOAD_EX(sfx, regs...) "ldaxr" #sfx "\t" #regs
> +
> +#define __READ_ONCE_EX(x) \
> +({ \
> + typeof(&(x)) __x = &(x); \
> + int atomic = 1; \
> + union { __unqual_scalar_typeof(*__x) __val; char __c[1]; } __u; \
> + switch (sizeof(x)) { \
> + case 1: \
> + asm volatile(__LOAD_EX(b, %w0, %1) \
> + : "=r" (*(__u8 *)__u.__c) \
> + : "Q" (*__x) : "memory"); \
> + break; \
> + case 2: \
> + asm volatile(__LOAD_EX(h, %w0, %1) \
> + : "=r" (*(__u16 *)__u.__c) \
> + : "Q" (*__x) : "memory"); \
> + break; \
> + case 4: \
> + asm volatile(__LOAD_EX(, %w0, %1) \
> + : "=r" (*(__u32 *)__u.__c) \
> + : "Q" (*__x) : "memory"); \
> + break; \
> + case 8: \
> + asm volatile(__LOAD_EX(, %0, %1) \
> + : "=r" (*(__u64 *)__u.__c) \
> + : "Q" (*__x) : "memory"); \
> + break; \
> + default: \
> + atomic = 0; \
> + } \
> + atomic ? (typeof(*__x))__u.__val : (*(volatile typeof(__x))__x);\
> +})
I think this is a bad idea. Load-exclusive needs to be used very carefully,
preferably when you're able to see exactly what instructions it's
interacting with. By making this into a macro, we're at the mercy of the
compiler and we give the wrong impression that you could e.g. build atomic
critical sections out of this macro.
So I'm fairly strongly against this interface.
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists