From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, will.deacon@arm.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ramana.radhakrishnan@arm.com,
paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, dwmw2@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/15] Provide atomic_t functions implemented with ISO-C++11 atomics
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 13:31:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160519113116.GL3205@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160519105000.GV3193@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:50:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I suspect that might be quite a stretch.
> >
> > I've opened:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71191
> >
> > to cover this.
>
> Thanks; until such time as this stretch has been made I don't see this
> intrinsic stuff being much use on any of the LL/SC archs.
FWIW, Will and me have been discussing a GCC/LLVM language extension
that would allow generating the insides of LL/SC loops. But neither has
had time to properly write something down yet :/
My latest thinking is something along the lines of:
static __always_inline int __load_locked(int *ptr)
{
int val;
__asm__ __volatile__ ("ldaxr %[val], [%[ptr]]"
: [val] "r" (val)
: [ptr] "m" (*ptr));
return val;
}
static __always_inline bool __store_conditional(int *ptr, int old, int new)
{
int ret;
__asm__ __volatile__ ("stlxr %[ret], %[new], [%[ptr]]"
: [ret] "r" (ret)
: [new] "r" (new),
[ptr] "m" (*ptr));
return ret != 0;
}
bool atomic_add_unless(atomic_t *v, int a, int u)
{
int val, old;
do __special_marker__ {
old = val = __load_locked(&v->counter);
if (val == u)
goto fail;
val += a;
} while (__store_conditional(&v->counter, old, val));
return true;
fail:
return false;
}
Where the __special_marker__ marks the whole { } scope as being the
inside of LL/SC and all variables must be in registers before we start.
If the compiler is not able to guarantee this, it must generate a
compile time error etc..
The __sc takes the @old and @new arguments such that we can implement
this on CAS archs with a regular load and CAS.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-19 11:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-18 15:10 [RFC PATCH 00/15] Provide atomics and bitops implemented with ISO C++11 atomics David Howells
2016-05-18 15:10 ` [RFC PATCH 01/15] cmpxchg_local() is not signed-value safe, so fix generic atomics David Howells
2016-05-18 15:29 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-05-18 15:10 ` [RFC PATCH 02/15] tty: ldsem_cmpxchg() should use cmpxchg() not atomic_long_cmpxchg() David Howells
2016-05-18 15:10 ` [RFC PATCH 03/15] Provide atomic_t functions implemented with ISO-C++11 atomics David Howells
2016-05-18 17:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-18 17:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-19 7:36 ` David Woodhouse
2016-05-19 7:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-19 9:52 ` David Howells
2016-05-19 10:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-19 11:31 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2016-05-19 11:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-19 14:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-05-19 14:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-19 15:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-05-20 9:32 ` Michael Ellerman
2016-05-23 18:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-01 14:16 ` Will Deacon
2016-05-18 17:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-18 15:11 ` [RFC PATCH 04/15] Convert 32-bit ISO atomics into a template David Howells
2016-05-18 15:11 ` [RFC PATCH 05/15] Provide atomic64_t and atomic_long_t using ISO atomics David Howells
2016-05-18 15:11 ` [RFC PATCH 06/15] Provide 16-bit " David Howells
2016-05-18 17:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-18 15:11 ` [RFC PATCH 07/15] Provide cmpxchg(), xchg(), xadd() and __add() based on ISO C++11 intrinsics David Howells
2016-05-18 15:11 ` [RFC PATCH 08/15] Provide an implementation of bitops using C++11 atomics David Howells
2016-05-18 15:11 ` [RFC PATCH 09/15] Make the ISO bitops use 32-bit values internally David Howells
2016-05-18 15:11 ` [RFC PATCH 10/15] x86: Use ISO atomics David Howells
2016-05-18 15:12 ` [RFC PATCH 11/15] x86: Use ISO bitops David Howells
2016-05-18 15:12 ` [RFC PATCH 12/15] x86: Use ISO xchg(), cmpxchg() and friends David Howells
2016-05-18 15:12 ` [RFC PATCH 13/15] x86: Improve spinlocks using ISO C++11 intrinsic atomics David Howells
2016-05-18 17:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-18 15:12 ` [RFC PATCH 14/15] x86: Make the mutex implementation use ISO atomic ops David Howells
2016-05-18 15:12 ` [RFC PATCH 15/15] x86: Fix misc cmpxchg() and atomic_cmpxchg() calls to use try/return variants David Howells
2016-05-18 17:22 ` [RFC PATCH 00/15] Provide atomics and bitops implemented with ISO C++11 atomics Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-18 17:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-18 18:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-19 0:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-01 14:45 ` Will Deacon
2016-06-08 20:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20160519113116.GL3205@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=ramana.radhakrishnan@arm.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=x86@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox