From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 7/7] kernel: Force ACCESS_ONCE to work only on scalar
 types
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:28:05 +0100
Message-ID: <547394D5.4020301@de.ibm.com>
References: <1416834210-61738-1-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <1416834210-61738-8-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <15567.1416835858@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <CAADnVQJQydX9OU_rem+BObR0eWc-jrrwirUYVKH9rnN=Z8LG6A@mail.gmail.com> <CA+55aFxc72VsGTw4yFdeC1Sq65RUjYLKPD1ORnXB2d18WBMzvg@mail.gmail.com> <547381D7.2070404@de.ibm.com> <CA+55aFy+dunTcdgB4-BXsYiLDk9pf8b_L74ky-dMixpbX3JQQA@mail.gmail.com> <20141124194200.GR5050@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20141124194200.GR5050@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mips <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>, linux-x86_64@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org

Am 24.11.2014 um 20:42 schrieb Paul E. McKenney:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:14:42AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Christian Borntraeger
>> <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Looks really nice, but does not work with ACCESS_ONCE is on the left-hand side:
>>
>> Oh, I forgot about that. And that was indeed why I had done that whole
>> helper macro originally, with ACCESS_ONCE() itself just being the
>> dereference of the pointer.
> 
> OK, how about the following?
> 
> It complains if the variable is too large, for example, long long on
> 32-bit systems or large structures.  It is OK loading from and storing
> to small structures as well, which I am having a hard time thinking of
> as a disadvantage.

Well, the motivation for this series was that gcc  4.6 and 4.7 might ignore volatile for
such a case, see the original thread and this data structure

union ipte_control {
        unsigned long val;
        struct {
                unsigned long k  : 1;
                unsigned long kh : 31;
                unsigned long kg : 32;
        };
};

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> #define get_scalar_volatile_pointer(x) ({ \
> 	volatile typeof(x) *__vp = &(x); \
> 	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(*__vp) != sizeof(char) && \
> 		     sizeof(*__vp) != sizeof(short) && \
> 		     sizeof(*__vp) != sizeof(int) && \
> 		     sizeof(*__vp) != sizeof(long)); \
> 	__vp; })
> #define ACCESS_ONCE(x) (*get_scalar_volatile_pointer(x))
> 

This gives also several compiler errors when accessing u64 on a 32bit system. This is expected, but more widespread than expected - ouch.

Christian