[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250619043733.2a74d431@batman.local.home>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 04:37:33 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, Masami Hiramatsu
<mhiramat@...nel.org>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri
Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Thomas
Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Indu
Bhagat <indu.bhagat@...cle.com>, "Jose E. Marchesi" <jemarch@....org>, Beau
Belgrave <beaub@...ux.microsoft.com>, Jens Remus <jremus@...ux.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 07/14] unwind_user/deferred: Make unwind deferral
requests NMI-safe
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 10:34:15 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> Why can't we cmpxchg_local() the thing and avoid this horrible stuff?
>
> static u64 get_timestamp(struct unwind_task_info *info)
> {
> u64 new, old = info->timestamp;
>
> if (old)
> return old;
>
> new = local_clock();
> old = cmpxchg_local(&info->timestamp, old, new);
> if (old)
> return old;
> return new;
> }
>
> Seems simple enough; what's wrong with it?
It's a 64 bit number where most 32 bit architectures don't have any
decent cmpxchg on 64 bit values. That's given me hell in the ring
buffer code :-p
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists