From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
llvm@lists.linux.dev, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] arm64: Optimize __READ_ONCE() with CONFIG_LTO=y
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2026 19:28:18 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260202192818.3002fe7a@pumpkin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aYDEiOutq3_O8irP@willie-the-truck>
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 15:36:40 +0000
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 02:28:25PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> > Rework arm64 LTO __READ_ONCE() to improve code generation as follows:
... \
> > default: \
> > - atomic = 0; \
> > + __u.__val = *(volatile typeof(*__x) *)__x; \
>
> Since we're not providing acquire semantics for the non-atomic case,
> what we really want is the generic definition of __READ_ONCE() from
> include/asm-generic/rwonce.h here. The header inclusion mess prevents
> that, but why can't we just inline that definition here for the
> 'default' case? If TYPEOF_UNQUAL() leads to better codegen, shouldn't
> we use that to implement __unqual_scalar_typeof() when it is available?
>
> I fear I'm missing something here, but it just feels like we're
> optimising a pretty niche case (arm64 + LTO + non-atomic __READ_ONCE())
> in a way that looks more generally applicable.
Is that path even needed?
I'm sure I've built an x86-64 allmodconfig with it being an error.
If you look back in the history it used to be an error.
Anything to simplify READ_ONCE() will noticeably speed up build times.
Even on x86 just removing the check that the size is 1, 2, 4 or 8
makes a measurable difference - and that check doesn't need to be done
on every compile.
I'm not setup to do arm builds - never mind LTO ones.
(Yes, I know, it 'just' involves downloading the toolchain.)
David
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-02 19:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-30 13:28 [PATCH v3 0/3] arm64: Fixes for __READ_ONCE() with CONFIG_LTO=y Marco Elver
2026-01-30 13:28 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] arm64: Fix non-atomic " Marco Elver
2026-01-30 15:06 ` David Laight
2026-01-30 13:28 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] arm64: Optimize " Marco Elver
2026-01-30 15:11 ` David Laight
2026-02-02 15:36 ` Will Deacon
2026-02-02 16:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-02 16:05 ` Will Deacon
2026-02-02 17:48 ` Marco Elver
2026-02-02 19:28 ` David Laight [this message]
2026-01-30 13:28 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] arm64, compiler-context-analysis: Permit alias analysis through " Marco Elver
2026-01-30 15:13 ` David Laight
2026-02-02 15:39 ` Will Deacon
2026-02-02 19:29 ` David Laight
2026-02-03 11:47 ` Will Deacon
2026-02-04 10:46 ` Marco Elver
2026-02-04 13:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-04 14:15 ` Will Deacon
2026-02-06 15:09 ` Marco Elver
2026-02-06 18:26 ` David Laight
2026-02-15 21:55 ` Marco Elver
2026-02-15 22:16 ` David Laight
2026-02-15 22:43 ` Marco Elver
2026-02-15 23:18 ` David Laight
2026-02-15 23:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-02-16 11:09 ` David Laight
2026-02-16 15:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-02-16 17:43 ` David Laight
2026-02-17 12:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-17 14:25 ` David Laight
2026-02-17 16:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-02-17 16:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-02-18 19:34 ` Boqun Feng
2026-02-18 20:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-02-19 15:21 ` Gary Guo
2026-02-19 18:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-02-02 19:13 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] arm64: Fixes for " 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=20260202192818.3002fe7a@pumpkin \
--to=david.laight.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will@kernel.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.