From: andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com (Andrea Parri)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 6/9] asm-generic/bitops/atomic.h: Rewrite using atomic_fetch_*
Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 00:06:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180524220610.GA7607@andrea> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180524130948.f37eltocl5tnittp@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
Hi Mark,
> As an aside, If I complete the autogeneration stuff, it'll be possible
> to generate those. I split out the necessary barriers in [1], but I
> still have a lot of other preparatory cleanup to do.
I do grasp the rationale behind that naming:
__atomic_mb_{before,after}_{acquire,release,fence}()
and yet I remain puzzled by it:
For example, can you imagine (using):
__atomic_mb_before_acquire() ?
(as your __atomic_mb_after_acquire() is whispering me "acquire-fences"...)
Another example:
the "atomic" in that "smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic" is so "suggestive"!
(think at x86...), but it's not explicit in the proposed names.
I don't have other names to suggest at the moment... ;/ (aka just saying)
Andrea
>
> IIUC, the void-returning atomic ops are relaxed, so trying to unify that
> with the usual rule that no suffix means fence will slow things down
> unless we want to do a treewide substitition to fixup for that.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
>
> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git/commit/?h=atomics/api-unification&id=c6b9ff2627d06776e427a7f1a7f83caeff3db536
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
yamada.masahiro@socionext.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] asm-generic/bitops/atomic.h: Rewrite using atomic_fetch_*
Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 00:06:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180524220610.GA7607@andrea> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180524130948.f37eltocl5tnittp@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
Hi Mark,
> As an aside, If I complete the autogeneration stuff, it'll be possible
> to generate those. I split out the necessary barriers in [1], but I
> still have a lot of other preparatory cleanup to do.
I do grasp the rationale behind that naming:
__atomic_mb_{before,after}_{acquire,release,fence}()
and yet I remain puzzled by it:
For example, can you imagine (using):
__atomic_mb_before_acquire() ?
(as your __atomic_mb_after_acquire() is whispering me "acquire-fences"...)
Another example:
the "atomic" in that "smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic" is so "suggestive"!
(think at x86...), but it's not explicit in the proposed names.
I don't have other names to suggest at the moment... ;/ (aka just saying)
Andrea
>
> IIUC, the void-returning atomic ops are relaxed, so trying to unify that
> with the usual rule that no suffix means fence will slow things down
> unless we want to do a treewide substitition to fixup for that.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
>
> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git/commit/?h=atomics/api-unification&id=c6b9ff2627d06776e427a7f1a7f83caeff3db536
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-24 22:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-24 10:59 [PATCH 0/9] Rewrite asm-generic/bitops/{atomic, lock}.h and use on arm64 Will Deacon
2018-05-24 10:59 ` [PATCH 0/9] Rewrite asm-generic/bitops/{atomic,lock}.h " Will Deacon
2018-05-24 10:59 ` [PATCH 1/9] h8300: Don't include linux/kernel.h in asm/atomic.h Will Deacon
2018-05-24 10:59 ` Will Deacon
2018-07-22 13:58 ` Yoshinori Sato
2018-07-22 13:58 ` Yoshinori Sato
2018-05-24 10:59 ` [PATCH 2/9] m68k: Don't use asm-generic/bitops/lock.h Will Deacon
2018-05-24 10:59 ` Will Deacon
2018-05-24 10:59 ` [PATCH 3/9] asm-generic: Move some macros from linux/bitops.h to a new bits.h file Will Deacon
2018-05-24 10:59 ` Will Deacon
2018-05-24 10:59 ` [PATCH 4/9] openrisc: Don't pull in all of linux/bitops.h in asm/cmpxchg.h Will Deacon
2018-05-24 10:59 ` Will Deacon
2018-05-24 10:59 ` [PATCH 5/9] sh: Don't pull in all of linux/bitops.h in asm/cmpxchg-xchg.h Will Deacon
2018-05-24 10:59 ` Will Deacon
2018-05-24 10:59 ` [PATCH 6/9] asm-generic/bitops/atomic.h: Rewrite using atomic_fetch_* Will Deacon
2018-05-24 10:59 ` Will Deacon
2018-05-24 12:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-24 12:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-24 12:47 ` Will Deacon
2018-05-24 12:47 ` Will Deacon
2018-05-24 13:09 ` Mark Rutland
2018-05-24 13:09 ` Mark Rutland
2018-05-24 22:06 ` Andrea Parri [this message]
2018-05-24 22:06 ` Andrea Parri
2018-05-24 22:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-24 22:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-24 10:59 ` [PATCH 7/9] asm-generic/bitops/lock.h: " Will Deacon
2018-05-24 10:59 ` Will Deacon
2018-05-24 10:59 ` [PATCH 8/9] arm64: Replace our atomic/lock bitop implementations with asm-generic Will Deacon
2018-05-24 10:59 ` Will Deacon
2018-05-24 10:59 ` [PATCH 9/9] arm64: bitops: Include <asm-generic/bitops/ext2-atomic-setbit.h> Will Deacon
2018-05-24 10:59 ` Will Deacon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180524220610.GA7607@andrea \
--to=andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.