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;
Date:   Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:15:07 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc:     Rui Wang <wangrui@loongson.cn>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Rui Wang <r@hev.cc>, Xuefeng Li <lixuefeng@loongson.cn>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@gmail.com>,
        Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@loongson.cn>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] locking/atomic: Implement
 atomic{,64,_long}_{fetch_,}{andnot_or}{,_relaxed,_acquire,_release}()
Message-ID: <YQKNu3WeMA/eJrLj@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20210729093003.146166-1-wangrui@loongson.cn>
 <20210729095551.GE21151@willie-the-truck>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210729095551.GE21151@willie-the-truck>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 10:55:52AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:

> Overall, I'm not thrilled to bits by extending the atomics API with
> operations that cannot be implemented efficiently on any (?) architectures
> and are only used by the qspinlock slowpath on machines with more than 16K
> CPUs.

My rationale for proposing this primitive is similar to the existence of
other composite atomic ops from the Misc (and refcount) class (as per
atomic_t.txt). They're common/performance sensitive operations that, on
LL/SC platforms, can be better implemented than a cmpxchg() loop.

Specifically here, it can be used to implement short xchg() in an
architecturally neutral way, but more importantly it provides fwd
progress on LL/SC, while most LL/SC based cmpxchg() implementations are
arguably broken there.

People seem to really struggle to implement that sanely.

It's such a shame we can't have the compiler generate sane composite
atomics for us..

> I also think we're lacking documentation justifying when you would use this
> new primitive over e.g. a sub-word WRITE_ONCE() on architectures that
> support those, especially for the non-returning variants.

Given the sub-word ordering 'fun', this might come in handy somewhere
:-) But yes, it's existence is more of a completeness/symmetry argument
than anything else.