[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161125124044.GN3092@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 13:40:44 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dave@...olabs.net, dbueso@...e.de,
dvyukov@...gle.com, jasowang@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] virtio/vringh: kill off ACCESS_ONCE()
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 12:23:56PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Naming will be problematic; calling them ATOMIC_* makes tham sound like
> they work on atomic_t. That and I have no idea how to ensure correct
> usage tree-wide; I'm not sure if/how Coccinelle can help.
>
> Peter, thoughts?
Something like so perhaps?
---
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP
#define WARN_SINGLE_COPY_ALIGNMENT(ptr) \
WARN_ON_ONCE(((unsigned long)(ptr)) & (sizeof(*(ptr))-1))
#else
#define WARN_SINGLE_COPY_ALIGNMENT(ptr)
#endif
/*
* Provide accessors for Single-Copy atomicy.
*
* That is, ensure that machine word sized loads/stores to naturally
* aligned variables are single instructions.
*
* By reason of not being able to use C11 atomic crud, use our beloved
* volatile qualifier. Since volatile tells the compiler the value can
* be changed behind its back, it must use Single-Copy atomic loads and
* stores to access them, otherwise it runs the risk of load/store
* tearing.
*/
#define SINGLE_LOAD(x) \
{( \
compiletime_assert_atomic_type(typeof(x)); \
WARN_SINGLE_COPY_ALIGNMENT(&(x)); \
READ_ONCE(x); \
})
#define SINGLE_STORE(x, v) \
({ \
compiletime_assert_atomic_type(typeof(x)); \
WARN_SINGLE_COPY_ALIGNMENT(&(x)); \
WRITE_ONCE(x, v); \
})
Powered by blists - more mailing lists