From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc: "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] powerpc/bitops: Use immediate operand when possible
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 12:20:03 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210414172003.GX26583@gate.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <efcabc9410cf4d03b203749a02e5a935@AcuMS.aculab.com>
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 03:32:04PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Segher Boessenkool
> > Sent: 14 April 2021 16:19
> ...
> > > Could the kernel use GCC builtin atomic functions instead ?
> > >
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/_005f_005fatomic-Builtins.html
> >
> > Certainly that should work fine for the simpler cases that the atomic
> > operations are meant to provide. But esp. for not-so-simple cases the
> > kernel may require some behaviour provided by the existing assembler
> > implementation, and not by the atomic builtins.
> >
> > I'm not saying this cannot work, just that some serious testing will be
> > needed. If it works it should be the best of all worlds, so then it is
> > a really good idea yes :-)
>
> I suspect they just add an extra layer of abstraction that makes it
> even more difficult to verify and could easily get broken by a compiler
> update (etc).
I would say it uses an existing facility, instead of creating a kernel-
specific one.
> The other issue is that the code needs to be correct with compiled
> with (for example) -O0.
> That could very easily break anything except the asm implementation
> if additional memory accesses and/or increased code size cause grief.
The compiler generates correct code. New versions of the compiler or
old, -O0 or not, under any phase of the moon.
Of course sometimes the compiler is broken, but there are pre-existing
ways of dealing with that, and there is no reason at all to think this
would break more often than random other code.
Segher
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] powerpc/bitops: Use immediate operand when possible
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 12:20:03 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210414172003.GX26583@gate.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <efcabc9410cf4d03b203749a02e5a935@AcuMS.aculab.com>
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 03:32:04PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Segher Boessenkool
> > Sent: 14 April 2021 16:19
> ...
> > > Could the kernel use GCC builtin atomic functions instead ?
> > >
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/_005f_005fatomic-Builtins.html
> >
> > Certainly that should work fine for the simpler cases that the atomic
> > operations are meant to provide. But esp. for not-so-simple cases the
> > kernel may require some behaviour provided by the existing assembler
> > implementation, and not by the atomic builtins.
> >
> > I'm not saying this cannot work, just that some serious testing will be
> > needed. If it works it should be the best of all worlds, so then it is
> > a really good idea yes :-)
>
> I suspect they just add an extra layer of abstraction that makes it
> even more difficult to verify and could easily get broken by a compiler
> update (etc).
I would say it uses an existing facility, instead of creating a kernel-
specific one.
> The other issue is that the code needs to be correct with compiled
> with (for example) -O0.
> That could very easily break anything except the asm implementation
> if additional memory accesses and/or increased code size cause grief.
The compiler generates correct code. New versions of the compiler or
old, -O0 or not, under any phase of the moon.
Of course sometimes the compiler is broken, but there are pre-existing
ways of dealing with that, and there is no reason at all to think this
would break more often than random other code.
Segher
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-14 17:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-08 15:33 [PATCH v1 1/2] powerpc/bitops: Use immediate operand when possible Christophe Leroy
2021-04-08 15:33 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-08 15:33 ` [PATCH v1 2/2] powerpc/atomics: " Christophe Leroy
2021-04-08 15:33 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-12 22:08 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-04-12 22:08 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-04-13 16:36 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-13 16:36 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-12 21:54 ` [PATCH v1 1/2] powerpc/bitops: " Segher Boessenkool
2021-04-12 21:54 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-04-13 16:33 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-13 16:33 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-13 21:58 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-04-13 21:58 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-04-14 2:01 ` Nicholas Piggin
2021-04-14 2:01 ` Nicholas Piggin
2021-04-14 12:24 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-04-14 12:24 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-04-14 12:42 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-14 12:42 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-14 15:19 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-04-14 15:19 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-04-14 15:32 ` David Laight
2021-04-14 15:32 ` David Laight
2021-04-14 17:20 ` Segher Boessenkool [this message]
2021-04-14 17:20 ` Segher Boessenkool
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=20210414172003.GX26583@gate.crashing.org \
--to=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=David.Laight@aculab.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.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.