On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 06:25:04PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2023, at 15:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
quoted
In order to replace cmpxchg_double() with the newly minted
cmpxchg128() family of functions, wire it up in this_cpu_cmpxchg().
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
I commented on this in the previous version but never got any
reply from you:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/1d88ba9f-5541-4b67-9cc8-a361eef36547@app.fastmail.com/ (local)
Sorry, seem to have missed that :/
Unless I have misunderstood what you are doing, my concerns are
still the same:
quoted
#define this_cpu_cmpxchg(pcp, oval, nval) \
- __pcpu_size_call_return2(this_cpu_cmpxchg_, pcp, oval, nval)
+ __pcpu_size16_call_return2(this_cpu_cmpxchg_, pcp, oval, nval)
#define this_cpu_cmpxchg_double(pcp1, pcp2, oval1, oval2, nval1,
nval2) \
__pcpu_double_call_return_bool(this_cpu_cmpxchg_double_, pcp1, pcp2,
oval1, oval2, nval1, nval2)
Having a variable-length this_cpu_cmpxchg() that turns into cmpxchg128()
and cmpxchg64() even on CPUs where this traps (!X86_FEATURE_CX16) seems
like a bad design to me.
I would much prefer fixed-length this_cpu_cmpxchg64()/this_cpu_cmpxchg128()
calls that never trap but fall back to the generic version on CPUs that
are lacking the atomics.
You're thinking acidental usage etc..? Lemme see what I can do.