On Fri, Jan 09, 2026 at 11:05:06AM -0800, Ankur Arora wrote:

Will Deacon [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Sun, Dec 14, 2025 at 08:49:11PM -0800, Ankur Arora wrote:

quoted

Extend __cmpwait_relaxed() to __cmpwait_relaxed_timeout() which takes
an additional timeout value in ns.

Lacking WFET, or with zero or negative value of timeout we fallback
to WFE.

Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Ankur Arora <redacted>
---
 arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h |  8 ++--
 arch/arm64/include/asm/cmpxchg.h | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------
 2 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)

Sorry, just spotted something else on this...

quoted

diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h
index 6190e178db51..fbd71cd4ef4e 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h

@@ -224,8 +224,8 @@ do {									\
 extern bool arch_timer_evtstrm_available(void);

 /*
- * In the common case, cpu_poll_relax() sits waiting in __cmpwait_relaxed()
- * for the ptr value to change.
+ * In the common case, cpu_poll_relax() sits waiting in __cmpwait_relaxed()/
+ * __cmpwait_relaxed_timeout() for the ptr value to change.
  *
  * Since this period is reasonably long, choose SMP_TIMEOUT_POLL_COUNT
  * to be 1, so smp_cond_load_{relaxed,acquire}_timeout() does a

@@ -234,7 +234,9 @@ extern bool arch_timer_evtstrm_available(void);
 #define SMP_TIMEOUT_POLL_COUNT	1

 #define cpu_poll_relax(ptr, val, timeout_ns) do {			\
-	if (arch_timer_evtstrm_available())				\
+	if (alternative_has_cap_unlikely(ARM64_HAS_WFXT))		\
+		__cmpwait_relaxed_timeout(ptr, val, timeout_ns);	\
+	else if (arch_timer_evtstrm_available())			\
 		__cmpwait_relaxed(ptr, val);				\

Don't you want to make sure that we have the event stream available for
__cmpwait_relaxed_timeout() too? Otherwise, a large timeout is going to
cause problems.

Would that help though? If called from smp_cond_load_relaxed_timeout()
then we would wake up and just call __cmpwait_relaxed_timeout() again.

Fair enough, I can see that. Is it worth capping the maximum timeout
like we do for udelay()?

Will