From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
llvm@lists.linux.dev, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] arm64: Optimize __READ_ONCE() with CONFIG_LTO=y
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2026 19:28:18 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260202192818.3002fe7a@pumpkin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aYDEiOutq3_O8irP@willie-the-truck>
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 15:36:40 +0000
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 02:28:25PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> > Rework arm64 LTO __READ_ONCE() to improve code generation as follows:
... \
> > default: \
> > - atomic = 0; \
> > + __u.__val = *(volatile typeof(*__x) *)__x; \
>
> Since we're not providing acquire semantics for the non-atomic case,
> what we really want is the generic definition of __READ_ONCE() from
> include/asm-generic/rwonce.h here. The header inclusion mess prevents
> that, but why can't we just inline that definition here for the
> 'default' case? If TYPEOF_UNQUAL() leads to better codegen, shouldn't
> we use that to implement __unqual_scalar_typeof() when it is available?
>
> I fear I'm missing something here, but it just feels like we're
> optimising a pretty niche case (arm64 + LTO + non-atomic __READ_ONCE())
> in a way that looks more generally applicable.
Is that path even needed?
I'm sure I've built an x86-64 allmodconfig with it being an error.
If you look back in the history it used to be an error.
Anything to simplify READ_ONCE() will noticeably speed up build times.
Even on x86 just removing the check that the size is 1, 2, 4 or 8
makes a measurable difference - and that check doesn't need to be done
on every compile.
I'm not setup to do arm builds - never mind LTO ones.
(Yes, I know, it 'just' involves downloading the toolchain.)
David
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-02 19:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-30 13:28 [PATCH v3 0/3] arm64: Fixes for __READ_ONCE() with CONFIG_LTO=y Marco Elver
2026-01-30 13:28 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] arm64: Fix non-atomic " Marco Elver
2026-01-30 15:06 ` David Laight
2026-01-30 13:28 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] arm64: Optimize " Marco Elver
2026-01-30 15:11 ` David Laight
2026-02-02 15:36 ` Will Deacon
2026-02-02 16:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-02 16:05 ` Will Deacon
2026-02-02 17:48 ` Marco Elver
2026-02-02 19:28 ` David Laight [this message]
2026-01-30 13:28 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] arm64, compiler-context-analysis: Permit alias analysis through " Marco Elver
2026-01-30 15:13 ` David Laight
2026-02-02 15:39 ` Will Deacon
2026-02-02 19:29 ` David Laight
2026-02-03 11:47 ` Will Deacon
2026-02-04 10:46 ` Marco Elver
2026-02-04 13:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-04 14:15 ` Will Deacon
2026-02-06 15:09 ` Marco Elver
2026-02-06 18:26 ` David Laight
2026-02-15 21:55 ` Marco Elver
2026-02-15 22:16 ` David Laight
2026-02-15 22:43 ` Marco Elver
2026-02-15 23:18 ` David Laight
2026-02-15 23:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-02-16 11:09 ` David Laight
2026-02-16 15:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-02-16 17:43 ` David Laight
2026-02-17 12:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-17 14:25 ` David Laight
2026-02-17 16:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-02-17 16:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-02-18 19:34 ` Boqun Feng
2026-02-18 20:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-02-19 15:21 ` Gary Guo
2026-02-19 18:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-02-02 19:13 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] arm64: Fixes for " Will Deacon
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=20260202192818.3002fe7a@pumpkin \
--to=david.laight.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will@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