Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1284311

Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire()

Show all headers | View raw

On 12/04/2015 05:05 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Waiman Long<waiman.long@hpe.com>  wrote:
>> Will the following work?
> Are we trying to win some obfuscated C contest here?
>
> Just make it do something like (skipping backslashes to make it easier
> to type and read)
>
>   #define smp_cond_load_acquire(ptr, cond_expr) ({
>       typeof(*ptr) VAL;
>       for (;;) {
>            VAL = READ_ONCE(*ptr);
>            if (cond_expr) break;
>            cpu_relax();
>       }
>       smp_rmb();
>       VAL;
>    })
>
> and then you'd have it be
>
>      val = smp_cond_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter,
>                 !(VAL&  _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK));
>
> which is at least halfway legible. Not some odd "fragments of
> expressions" interfaces unless absolutely required, please.

It is just some random thought that I have. I am not saying that it is 
the right way to go.

> Of course, I suspect we should not use READ_ONCE(), but some
> architecture-overridable version that just defaults to READ_ONCE().
> Same goes for that "smp_rmb()". Because maybe some architectures will
> just prefer an explicit acquire, and I suspect we do *not* want
> architectures having to recreate and override that crazy loop.
>
> How much does this all actually end up mattering, btw?
>
>                 Linus

I think what Will want to do is to provide an architecture specific 
replacement for the whole macro, not just part of it. So using READ_ONCE 
should be fine.

Cheers,
Longman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH 0/4] scheduler ordering bits -v2 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-12-03 13:50 +0100
  [PATCH 3/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-12-03 13:50 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2015-12-03 17:40 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-12-03 21:30 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-12-03 22:20 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2015-12-04 16:00 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com> - 2015-12-04 22:00 +0100
          Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-12-04 23:10 +0100
            Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com> - 2015-12-04 23:50 +0100
            Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-12-05 00:50 +0100
              Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2015-12-07 16:20 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2015-12-03 20:50 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-12-03 21:40 +0100

csiph-web