MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5661FCD0.60909@hpe.com>
References: <20151203124010.627312076@infradead.org>
	<20151203124339.552838970@infradead.org>
	<20151203163725.GJ11337@arm.com>
	<20151203202627.GV17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	<5661FCD0.60909@hpe.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 14:05:49 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzZA9EB3hFptSpdmeMOifeM5BWQGOW+ib7SLvyMTETzaA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire()
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1365
Lines: 42

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com> wrote:
>
> Will the following work?

Are we trying to win some obfuscated C contest here?

Just make it do something like (skipping backslashes to make it easier
to type and read)

 #define smp_cond_load_acquire(ptr, cond_expr) ({
     typeof(*ptr) VAL;
     for (;;) {
          VAL = READ_ONCE(*ptr);
          if (cond_expr) break;
          cpu_relax();
     }
     smp_rmb();
     VAL;
  })

and then you'd have it be

    val = smp_cond_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter,
               !(VAL & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK));

which is at least halfway legible. Not some odd "fragments of
expressions" interfaces unless absolutely required, please.

Of course, I suspect we should not use READ_ONCE(), but some
architecture-overridable version that just defaults to READ_ONCE().
Same goes for that "smp_rmb()". Because maybe some architectures will
just prefer an explicit acquire, and I suspect we do *not* want
architectures having to recreate and override that crazy loop.

How much does this all actually end up mattering, btw?

               Linus
--
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/