linux-arch.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.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>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 7/7] kernel: Force ACCESS_ONCE to work only on scalar types
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:16:54 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5473A046.2020901@de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFz2bCbhQP3d1bh48AcWTh9bkoMO07JjmwbApGCanJFEMQ@mail.gmail.com>

Am 24.11.2014 um 22:02 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Christian Borntraeger
> <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> That looks like a lot of changes all over ACCESS_ONCE -> ASSIGN_ONCE:
>> git grep "ACCESS_ONCE.*=.*"
>> gives me 200 placea not in Documentation.
> 
> Yeah, that's a bit annoying.
> 
> How about a combination of the two:
> 
>  - accept the fact that right now ACCESS_ONCE() is fairly widespread
> (even for writing)
> 
>  - but also admit that we'd be better off with a nicer interface
> 
> and make the solution be:
> 
>  - make ACCESS_ONCE() only work on scalars, and deprecate it
> 
>  - add new "read_once()" and "write_once()" interfaces that *do* work
> on (appropriately sized) structures and unions, and start migrating
> things over. In particular, start with the ones that can no longer use
> ACCESS_ONCE() because they aren't scalar..
> 
> That second point would make the conversion patches actually easier to
> read. Instead of this:
> 
>  static inline int arch_spin_is_locked(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
>  {
> -       struct __raw_tickets tmp = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets);
> +       arch_spinlock_t tmp = {};
> 
> -       return tmp.tail != tmp.head;
> +       tmp.head_tail =ACCESS_ONCE(lock->head_tail);
> +       return tmp.tickets.tail != tmp.tickets.head;
>  }
> 
> which isn't *complex*, but is also not an obvious conversion, we'd have just
> 
>  static inline int arch_spin_is_locked(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
>  {
> -       struct __raw_tickets tmp = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets);
> -       struct __raw_tickets tmp = read_once(lock->tickets);
> 
>         return tmp.tail != tmp.head;
>  }
> 
> which is a much simpler and more obvious change.
> 
> And then we could slowly try to migrate existing ACCESS_ONCE() users
> over (particularly writers).
> 
> Hmm? Too much?

I will give it a try. I will start with Alexei's version for ACCESS_ONCE and your snippets to build read_once and write_once. The only open question is, what to do with the "too large" accesses. Pauls initial patch showed several 
places, e.g. kernel/sched/fair.c accessing an u64 even on 32bit:
[...]
   age_stamp = ACCESS_ONCE(rq->age_stamp);
        avg = ACCESS_ONCE(rq->rt_avg);
[...]

I think I will simply not touch those...



Christian

  reply	other threads:[~2014-11-24 21:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-11-24 13:03 [PATCH/RFC 0/7] ACCESS_ONCE and non-scalar accesses Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 13:03 ` [PATCH 1/7] KVM: s390: Fix ipte locking Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 13:03 ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 13:03 ` [PATCH/RFC 2/7] mm: replace page table access via ACCESS_ONCE with barriers Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 13:03 ` [PATCH/RFC 3/7] x86: Rework ACCESS_ONCE for spinlock code Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 13:03 ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 13:03 ` [PATCH/RFC 4/7] x86: Replace ACCESS_ONCE in gup with a barrier Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 13:03 ` [PATCH/RFC 5/7] mips: " Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 13:03 ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 13:03 ` [PATCH/RFC 6/7] arm64: Replace ACCESS_ONCE for spinlock code with barriers Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 18:50   ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 18:50     ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 13:03 ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 13:03 ` [PATCH/RFC 7/7] kernel: Force ACCESS_ONCE to work only on scalar types Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 13:30 ` David Howells
2014-11-24 17:30   ` Linus Torvalds
2014-11-24 18:02   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2014-11-24 18:02     ` Alexei Starovoitov
2014-11-24 18:35     ` Linus Torvalds
2014-11-24 18:35       ` Linus Torvalds
2014-11-24 19:07       ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 19:07         ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 19:14         ` Linus Torvalds
2014-11-24 19:42           ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-11-24 20:19             ` Linus Torvalds
2014-11-24 20:46               ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-11-24 20:28             ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 20:28               ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 20:04       ` David Howells
2014-11-24 20:34         ` Linus Torvalds
2014-11-24 20:34           ` Linus Torvalds
2014-11-24 20:53           ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 21:02             ` Linus Torvalds
2014-11-24 21:16               ` Christian Borntraeger [this message]
2014-11-24 21:16                 ` Christian Borntraeger
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-11-24 20:29 Alexei Starovoitov
2014-11-24 20:45 ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 20:45   ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 20:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-11-24 22:58 Alexei Starovoitov
2014-11-24 22:58 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2014-11-25  0:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-11-25  2:28 Alexei Starovoitov

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=5473A046.2020901@de.ibm.com \
    --to=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mips@linux-mips.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-x86_64@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).