Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To:     'Segher Boessenkool' <segher@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
CC:     Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v1 1/2] powerpc/bitops: Use immediate operand when
 possible
Thread-Topic: [PATCH v1 1/2] powerpc/bitops: Use immediate operand when
 possible
Thread-Index: AQHXMUHmVAfluj7FfEq84rYmesOs4qq0IuPA
Date:   Wed, 14 Apr 2021 15:32:04 +0000
Message-ID: <efcabc9410cf4d03b203749a02e5a935@AcuMS.aculab.com>
References: <09da6fec57792d6559d1ea64e00be9870b02dab4.1617896018.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
 <20210412215428.GM26583@gate.crashing.org>
 <ecb1b1a5-ae92-e8a3-6490-26341edfbccb@csgroup.eu>
 <20210413215803.GT26583@gate.crashing.org>
 <1618365589.67fxh7cot9.astroid@bobo.none>
 <20210414122409.GV26583@gate.crashing.org>
 <daacce9f-1900-1034-980b-be5a58d6be09@csgroup.eu>
 <20210414151921.GW26583@gate.crashing.org>
In-Reply-To: <20210414151921.GW26583@gate.crashing.org>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

From: Segher Boessenkool
> Sent: 14 April 2021 16:19
...
> > Could the kernel use GCC builtin atomic functions instead ?
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/_005f_005fatomic-Builtins.html
> 
> Certainly that should work fine for the simpler cases that the atomic
> operations are meant to provide.  But esp. for not-so-simple cases the
> kernel may require some behaviour provided by the existing assembler
> implementation, and not by the atomic builtins.
> 
> I'm not saying this cannot work, just that some serious testing will be
> needed.  If it works it should be the best of all worlds, so then it is
> a really good idea yes :-)

I suspect they just add an extra layer of abstraction that makes it
even more difficult to verify and could easily get broken by a compiler
update (etc).

The other issue is that the code needs to be correct with compiled
with (for example) -O0.
That could very easily break anything except the asm implementation
if additional memory accesses and/or increased code size cause grief.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)