[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cf264b5f-be03-af53-3de3-a97051f9577e@gentwo.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 10:22:08 -0800 (PST)
From: "Christoph Lameter (Ampere)" <cl@...two.org>
To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>
cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/2] x86/locking: Use ALT_OUTPUT_SP() for
percpu_{,try_}cmpxchg{64,128}_op()
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> OTOH, all recent x86_64 processors support CMPXCHG128 insn, so the
> call alternative will be rarely used.
Do we still support processors without cmpxchg128? If not then lets just
drop the calls from the kernel.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists