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;
Date:   Thu, 3 Oct 2019 15:41:31 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org,
        jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
        josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, edumazet@google.com,
        fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, joel@joelfernandes.org,
        Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@wdc.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>,
        Shane M Seymour <shane.seymour@hpe.com>,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/9] rcu: Upgrade rcu_swap_protected() to
 rcu_replace()
Message-ID: <20191003134131.GS4536@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20191003014310.13262-1-paulmck@kernel.org>
 <20191003014153.GA13156@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <25408.1570091957@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <20191003090850.1e2561b3@gandalf.local.home>
 <20191003133315.GN2689@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191003133315.GN2689@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 06:33:15AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 09:08:50AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 03 Oct 2019 09:39:17 +0100
> > David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > paulmck@kernel.org wrote:
> > > 
> > > > +#define rcu_replace(rcu_ptr, ptr, c)					\
> > > > +({									\
> > > > +	typeof(ptr) __tmp = rcu_dereference_protected((rcu_ptr), (c));	\
> > > > +	rcu_assign_pointer((rcu_ptr), (ptr));				\
> > > > +	__tmp;								\
> > > > +})  
> > > 
> > > Does it make sense to actually use xchg() if that's supported by the arch?
> 
> Historically, xchg() has been quite a bit slower than a pair of assignment
> statements, in part due to the strong memory ordering guaranteed by
> xchg().  Has that changed?  If so, then, agreed, it might make sense to
> use xchg().

Nope, still the case. xchg() is an atomic op with full ordering.