From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
mingo@kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 02/10] kernel: Provide READ_ONCE and ASSIGN_ONCE
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 20:35:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5474D9EE.6070305@de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141125155943.GB5050@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Am 25.11.2014 um 16:59 schrieb Paul E. McKenney:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 01:38:29PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> ACCESS_ONCE does not work reliably on non-scalar types. For
>> example gcc 4.6 and 4.7 might remove the volatile tag for such
>> accesses during the SRA (scalar replacement of aggregates) step
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58145)
>>
>> Let's provide READ_ONCE/ASSIGN_ONCE that will do all accesses via
>> scalar types.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> include/linux/compiler.h | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/compiler.h b/include/linux/compiler.h
>> index d5ad7b1..0ff01f2 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/compiler.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/compiler.h
>> @@ -186,6 +186,40 @@ void ftrace_likely_update(struct ftrace_branch_data *f, int val, int expect);
>> # define __UNIQUE_ID(prefix) __PASTE(__PASTE(__UNIQUE_ID_, prefix), __LINE__)
>> #endif
>>
>> +#include <linux/types.h>
>> +
>> +static __always_inline void __assign_once_size(volatile void *p, void *res, int size)
>> +{
>> + switch (size) {
>> + case 1: *(volatile u8 *)p = *(u8 *)res; break;
>> + case 2: *(volatile u16 *)p = *(u16 *)res; break;
>> + case 4: *(volatile u32 *)p = *(u32 *)res; break;
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
>> + case 8: *(volatile u64 *)p = *(u64 *)res; break;
>
> We really need something like this to catch invalid sizes:
>
> default: invoke_nonexistent_function();
>
> Of course, a BUILD_BUG_ON() would give a nicer error message.
>
> Without this, in my testing, the following compiles without error, generating
> no code:
>
> struct foo {
> int field[10];
> } f, f1;
>
> f1 = READ_ONCE(f);
>
> There is probably some better way to do this.
Yes, I was trying to do something for default, but we are in compiler.h and BUILD_BUG_ON etc are not defined. including other header files gave me some trouble, but doing it only inside the ifdef !assembly might work out (as I did with linux/types.h).
The thing is this case was actually detected see the pmd_t compile error for m68k and sparc. Defining an extern function named read_once_called_for_large_object and then let the linker do the real work might work out as well.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-25 19:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-25 12:38 [PATCHv2 00/10] ACCESS_ONCE and non-scalar accesses Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-25 12:38 ` [PATCHv2 01/10] KVM: s390: Fix ipte locking Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-25 12:38 ` [PATCHv2 02/10] kernel: Provide READ_ONCE and ASSIGN_ONCE Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-25 15:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-11-25 17:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-11-25 17:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-11-25 19:35 ` Christian Borntraeger [this message]
2014-11-25 12:38 ` [PATCHv2 03/10] mm: replace ACCESS_ONCE with READ_ONCE Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-25 12:38 ` [PATCHv2 04/10] x86/spinlock: Replace ACCESS_ONCE with READ_ONCE/ASSIGN_ONCE Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-25 20:29 ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-25 12:38 ` [PATCHv2 05/10] x86: Replace ACCESS_ONCE in gup with READ_ONCE Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-25 12:38 ` [PATCHv2 06/10] mips: " Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-25 12:38 ` [PATCHv2 07/10] arm64: Replace ACCESS_ONCE for spinlock code " Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-25 12:38 ` [PATCHv2 08/10] arm: " Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-25 12:38 ` [PATCHv2 09/10] tighten rules for ACCESS ONCE Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-25 12:38 ` [PATCHv2 10/10] KVM: s390: change ipte lock from barrier to READ_ONCE Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-26 19:20 ` [PATCHv3 00/10] ACCESS_ONCE and non-scalar accesses Christian Borntraeger
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=5474D9EE.6070305@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@arm.linux.org.uk \
--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