* [PATCH v13 04/17] preempt: Introduce __preempt_count_{sub, add}_return()
[not found] <20251013155205.2004838-1-lyude@redhat.com>
@ 2025-10-13 15:48 ` Lyude Paul
2025-11-04 12:30 ` Andreas Hindborg
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Lyude Paul @ 2025-10-13 15:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rust-for-linux, Thomas Gleixner, Boqun Feng, linux-kernel,
Daniel Almeida
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, Heiko Carstens, Vasily Gorbik,
Alexander Gordeev, Christian Borntraeger, Sven Schnelle,
Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, Dave Hansen,
maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT), H. Peter Anvin,
Arnd Bergmann, Jinjie Ruan, Ada Couprie Diaz, Juergen Christ,
Brian Gerst, Uros Bizjak,
moderated list:ARM64 PORT (AARCH64 ARCHITECTURE),
open list:S390 ARCHITECTURE,
open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/ASM HEADER FILES
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
In order to use preempt_count() to tracking the interrupt disable
nesting level, __preempt_count_{add,sub}_return() are introduced, as
their name suggest, these primitives return the new value of the
preempt_count() after changing it. The following example shows the usage
of it in local_interrupt_disable():
// increase the HARDIRQ_DISABLE bit
new_count = __preempt_count_add_return(HARDIRQ_DISABLE_OFFSET);
// if it's the first-time increment, then disable the interrupt
// at hardware level.
if (new_count & HARDIRQ_DISABLE_MASK == HARDIRQ_DISABLE_OFFSET) {
local_irq_save(flags);
raw_cpu_write(local_interrupt_disable_state.flags, flags);
}
Having these primitives will avoid a read of preempt_count() after
changing preempt_count() on certain architectures.
Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
---
V10:
* Add commit message I forgot
* Rebase against latest pcpu_hot changes
V11:
* Remove CONFIG_PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES workaround from
__preempt_count_add_return()
arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
arch/s390/include/asm/preempt.h | 10 ++++++++++
arch/x86/include/asm/preempt.h | 10 ++++++++++
include/asm-generic/preempt.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
4 files changed, 52 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h
index 932ea4b620428..0dd8221d1bef7 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h
@@ -55,6 +55,24 @@ static inline void __preempt_count_sub(int val)
WRITE_ONCE(current_thread_info()->preempt.count, pc);
}
+static inline int __preempt_count_add_return(int val)
+{
+ u32 pc = READ_ONCE(current_thread_info()->preempt.count);
+ pc += val;
+ WRITE_ONCE(current_thread_info()->preempt.count, pc);
+
+ return pc;
+}
+
+static inline int __preempt_count_sub_return(int val)
+{
+ u32 pc = READ_ONCE(current_thread_info()->preempt.count);
+ pc -= val;
+ WRITE_ONCE(current_thread_info()->preempt.count, pc);
+
+ return pc;
+}
+
static inline bool __preempt_count_dec_and_test(void)
{
struct thread_info *ti = current_thread_info();
diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/preempt.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/preempt.h
index 6ccd033acfe52..5ae366e26c57d 100644
--- a/arch/s390/include/asm/preempt.h
+++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/preempt.h
@@ -98,6 +98,16 @@ static __always_inline bool should_resched(int preempt_offset)
return unlikely(READ_ONCE(get_lowcore()->preempt_count) == preempt_offset);
}
+static __always_inline int __preempt_count_add_return(int val)
+{
+ return val + __atomic_add(val, &get_lowcore()->preempt_count);
+}
+
+static __always_inline int __preempt_count_sub_return(int val)
+{
+ return __preempt_count_add_return(-val);
+}
+
#define init_task_preempt_count(p) do { } while (0)
/* Deferred to CPU bringup time */
#define init_idle_preempt_count(p, cpu) do { } while (0)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/preempt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/preempt.h
index 578441db09f0b..1220656f3370b 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/preempt.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/preempt.h
@@ -85,6 +85,16 @@ static __always_inline void __preempt_count_sub(int val)
raw_cpu_add_4(__preempt_count, -val);
}
+static __always_inline int __preempt_count_add_return(int val)
+{
+ return raw_cpu_add_return_4(__preempt_count, val);
+}
+
+static __always_inline int __preempt_count_sub_return(int val)
+{
+ return raw_cpu_add_return_4(__preempt_count, -val);
+}
+
/*
* Because we keep PREEMPT_NEED_RESCHED set when we do _not_ need to reschedule
* a decrement which hits zero means we have no preempt_count and should
diff --git a/include/asm-generic/preempt.h b/include/asm-generic/preempt.h
index 51f8f3881523a..c8683c046615d 100644
--- a/include/asm-generic/preempt.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/preempt.h
@@ -59,6 +59,20 @@ static __always_inline void __preempt_count_sub(int val)
*preempt_count_ptr() -= val;
}
+static __always_inline int __preempt_count_add_return(int val)
+{
+ *preempt_count_ptr() += val;
+
+ return *preempt_count_ptr();
+}
+
+static __always_inline int __preempt_count_sub_return(int val)
+{
+ *preempt_count_ptr() -= val;
+
+ return *preempt_count_ptr();
+}
+
static __always_inline bool __preempt_count_dec_and_test(void)
{
/*
--
2.51.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v13 04/17] preempt: Introduce __preempt_count_{sub, add}_return()
2025-10-13 15:48 ` [PATCH v13 04/17] preempt: Introduce __preempt_count_{sub, add}_return() Lyude Paul
@ 2025-11-04 12:30 ` Andreas Hindborg
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Hindborg @ 2025-11-04 12:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lyude Paul, rust-for-linux, Thomas Gleixner, Boqun Feng,
linux-kernel, Daniel Almeida
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, Heiko Carstens, Vasily Gorbik,
Alexander Gordeev, Christian Borntraeger, Sven Schnelle,
Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, Dave Hansen,
maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT), H. Peter Anvin,
Arnd Bergmann, Jinjie Ruan, Ada Couprie Diaz, Juergen Christ,
Brian Gerst, Uros Bizjak,
moderated list:ARM64 PORT (AARCH64 ARCHITECTURE),
open list:S390 ARCHITECTURE,
open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/ASM HEADER FILES
Lyude Paul <lyude@redhat.com> writes:
> From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
>
> In order to use preempt_count() to tracking the interrupt disable
> nesting level, __preempt_count_{add,sub}_return() are introduced, as
> their name suggest, these primitives return the new value of the
> preempt_count() after changing it. The following example shows the usage
> of it in local_interrupt_disable():
>
> // increase the HARDIRQ_DISABLE bit
> new_count = __preempt_count_add_return(HARDIRQ_DISABLE_OFFSET);
>
> // if it's the first-time increment, then disable the interrupt
> // at hardware level.
> if (new_count & HARDIRQ_DISABLE_MASK == HARDIRQ_DISABLE_OFFSET) {
> local_irq_save(flags);
> raw_cpu_write(local_interrupt_disable_state.flags, flags);
> }
>
> Having these primitives will avoid a read of preempt_count() after
> changing preempt_count() on certain architectures.
>
> Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
>
> ---
> V10:
> * Add commit message I forgot
> * Rebase against latest pcpu_hot changes
> V11:
> * Remove CONFIG_PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES workaround from
> __preempt_count_add_return()
>
> arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> arch/s390/include/asm/preempt.h | 10 ++++++++++
> arch/x86/include/asm/preempt.h | 10 ++++++++++
> include/asm-generic/preempt.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 52 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h
> index 932ea4b620428..0dd8221d1bef7 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h
> @@ -55,6 +55,24 @@ static inline void __preempt_count_sub(int val)
> WRITE_ONCE(current_thread_info()->preempt.count, pc);
> }
>
> +static inline int __preempt_count_add_return(int val)
> +{
> + u32 pc = READ_ONCE(current_thread_info()->preempt.count);
> + pc += val;
> + WRITE_ONCE(current_thread_info()->preempt.count, pc);
> +
> + return pc;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int __preempt_count_sub_return(int val)
> +{
> + u32 pc = READ_ONCE(current_thread_info()->preempt.count);
> + pc -= val;
> + WRITE_ONCE(current_thread_info()->preempt.count, pc);
> +
> + return pc;
> +}
> +
I am wondering how this works when preemption is enabled? Will the
kernel never preempt itself? I would think this would have to be atomic?
I can see the surrounding code is using the same pattern, so it is
probably fine. But I am curious as to why that is.
Best regards,
Andreas Hindborg
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-11-04 12:30 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <20251013155205.2004838-1-lyude@redhat.com>
2025-10-13 15:48 ` [PATCH v13 04/17] preempt: Introduce __preempt_count_{sub, add}_return() Lyude Paul
2025-11-04 12:30 ` Andreas Hindborg
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).