Received: by 2002:ac0:98c7:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id g7-v6csp2140192imd; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 06:40:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5c9I2s7xi3RdRbMhxe7moDvjzMRCEEpfiTL/Fj8XNXO8dhSW7EU9S6NtvL/5HmttXoOnxvq X-Received: by 2002:a62:7086:: with SMTP id l128-v6mr12254170pfc.181.1541166001884; Fri, 02 Nov 2018 06:40:01 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1541166001; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=TWVsHHWgb4RM8nuF2eDO9cbn4I25ygaGXL48kIpT/TVs4n8o7UjU+JepdFHn9euTvL DWzIA7niYgdkMcaV0Dr9U1ddmTj7C4IA2T3rhGpLOhDITkwdrbyXCJlsgxYhQBL2LBl1 jcpiS2pCr7mZj2tlyoyShyAwK5sbG71uDo5cwuQYrRt4L3jblsQsxHIdLIyZOFobHHKg 2G1b44+jhoVhQ01huTaIDn3ai7UM3fL0f9Lb8e23KJmq801YMrjP4KdrYWbbbOtTHj7V tIaD9d1iIeiRl1qTrM0Ui3Uyl5l0zpccw/1PUJatlA+zPBYU39AW2YqefnntTjZ0AhvJ feaQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:cc:to :from:date; bh=gF5kQxc7sSsxQRFexRYqn/mrjf+lK7ryz8xnr3GhvJY=; b=dXw8NMDX8lHwyefEPaoFQpxfBhDmCpEEkUsj4jR3jp+LFY9+2pUlScnzwQNQuSXHeb VKJk4XSCQB/joIQPpp7R/xMy8xpm4gyY+THrA1P0fmgda8R7nRUQYYFcN2340aH06PwD sMHSiDDUCyZwnTLVyJax6x9yCJfRb2gA9NAXq58ZD9XP+vk65XkWNCYpDmq+mBjODsy7 6ZI1vTBO8FeRc6P4fjCAwQgnIHMc7duv90hDroMgQwrt20vyIyFO4uzjhyOWpr4mmreW SGtjalZmMScjEv5EpE24pyVCJ1ny5yhLsRcKlOxM5FakZx7k4jjxlo1ougGEpIhZrcBW aQtg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id w18-v6si33900607plp.147.2018.11.02.06.39.46; Fri, 02 Nov 2018 06:40:01 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727939AbeKBWp7 (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 2 Nov 2018 18:45:59 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:59050 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727672AbeKBWp6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Nov 2018 18:45:58 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id wA2DXrGw013069 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 09:38:46 -0400 Received: from e17.ny.us.ibm.com (e17.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.207]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2ngmj1fv89-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 02 Nov 2018 09:38:46 -0400 Received: from localhost by e17.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:38:45 -0000 Received: from b01cxnp23034.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.29) by e17.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.204) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:38:39 -0000 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp23034.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id wA2DccdS29818906 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:38:38 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 124E8B2065; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:38:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C510CB2064; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:38:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.85.148.108]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:38:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EFEA516C36E4; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 06:38:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 06:38:37 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: David Laight , Trond Myklebust , "mark.rutland@arm.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "ralf@linux-mips.org" , "jlayton@kernel.org" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , "bfields@fieldses.org" , "linux-mips@linux-mips.org" , "linux@roeck-us.net" , "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "will.deacon@arm.com" , "boqun.feng@gmail.com" , "paul.burton@mips.com" , "anna.schumaker@netapp.com" , "jhogan@kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "davem@davemloft.net" , "arnd@arndb.de" , "paulus@samba.org" , "mpe@ellerman.id.au" , "benh@kernel.crashing.org" , "aryabinin@virtuozzo.com" , "dvyukov@google.com" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] lib: Introduce generic __cmpxchg_u64() and use it where needed Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com References: <20181031220253.GA15505@roeck-us.net> <20181031233235.qbedw3pinxcuk7me@pburton-laptop> <4e2438a23d2edf03368950a72ec058d1d299c32e.camel@hammerspace.com> <20181101131846.biyilr2msonljmij@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> <20181101145926.GE3178@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20181101163212.GF3159@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20181101170146.GQ4170@linux.ibm.com> <7d1ecd21c4c249138dfdd42b9aaa1cea@AcuMS.aculab.com> <20181102122328.GM3178@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181102122328.GM3178@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18110213-0040-0000-0000-0000048B794D X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00009971; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000268; SDB=6.01111590; UDB=6.00576070; IPR=6.00891681; MB=3.00024005; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2018-11-02 13:38:45 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18110213-0041-0000-0000-000008947A89 Message-Id: <20181102133837.GS4170@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-11-02_09:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=400 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1807170000 definitions=main-1811020124 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 01:23:28PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 10:56:31AM +0000, David Laight wrote: > > From: Paul E. McKenney > > > Sent: 01 November 2018 17:02 > > ... > > > And there is a push to define C++ signed arithmetic as 2s complement, > > > but there are still 1s complement systems with C compilers. Just not > > > C++ compilers. Legacy... > > > > Hmmm... I've used C compilers for DSPs where signed integer arithmetic > > used the 'data registers' and would saturate, unsigned used the 'address > > registers' and wrapped. > > That was deliberate because it is much better to clip analogue values. > > Seems a dodgy heuristic if you ask me. > > > Then there was the annoying cobol run time that didn't update the > > result variable if the result wouldn't fit. > > Took a while to notice that the sum of a list of values was even wrong! > > That would be perfectly valid for C - if unexpected. > > That's just insane ;-) > > > > > But for us using -fno-strict-overflow which actually defines signed > > > > overflow > > > > I wonder how much real code 'strict-overflow' gets rid of? > > IIRC gcc silently turns loops like: > > int i; for (i = 1; i != 0; i *= 2) ... > > into infinite ones. > > Which is never what is required. > > Nobody said C was a 'safe' language. But less UB makes a better language > IMO. Ideally we'd get all UBs filled in -- but I realise C has a few > very 'interesting' ones that might be hard to get rid of. There has been an effort to reduce UB, but not sure how far they got. Thanx, Paul