Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 22:16:51 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, corbet@lwn.net,
        mhocko@kernel.org, dhowells@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        waiman.long@hpe.com, pjt@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire()
Message-ID: <20151203211651.GQ11639@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20151203124010.627312076@infradead.org>
 <20151203124339.552838970@infradead.org>
 <20151203163725.GJ11337@arm.com>
 <20151203202627.GV17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151203202627.GV17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 833
Lines: 21

On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 09:26:27PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> The best we can do is hardcode a variable name; maybe something like:
> 
> #define smp_cond_acquire(ptr, expr) do {			\
> 	typeof(*ptr) val;					\
> 	while ((val = READ_ONCE(*ptr)), expr)			\
> 		cpu_relax();					\
> 	smp_rmb(); /* ctrl + rmb := acquire */			\
> } while (0)
> 
> Which would let us write:
> 
>   smp_cond_acquire(&lock->val.counter, !(val & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK));

So I'm thinking that might still be hard to use for you if the LDXR+WFE
has the regular LL/SC constraint of not allowing other loads in.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/