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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190307091514.2489338-1-arnd@arndb.de> <X9S28TcEXd2zghzp@elver.google.com>
 <87czzeg5ep.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <YPnPp9grFPTFrn4c@archlinux-ax161>
In-Reply-To: <YPnPp9grFPTFrn4c@archlinux-ax161>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Mon, 25 Oct 2021 15:52:04 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a0Nxn2feQnqi9xxGjLBYgHR1VVrPhpurmSVZ4tmcu6kSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] futex: mark futex_detect_cmpxchg() as 'noinline'
To:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Marco Elver <elver@google.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 10:05 PM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 09:01:34PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > @@ -86,6 +86,7 @@ config ARM
> >       select HAVE_FTRACE_MCOUNT_RECORD if !XIP_KERNEL
> >       select HAVE_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER if !THUMB2_KERNEL && !CC_IS_CLANG
> >       select HAVE_FUNCTION_TRACER if !XIP_KERNEL
> > +     select HAVE_FUTEX_CMPXCHG if FUTEX
> >       select HAVE_GCC_PLUGINS
> >       select HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT if PERF_EVENTS && (CPU_V6 || CPU_V6K || CPU_V7)
> >       select HAVE_IDE if PCI || ISA || PCMCIA
>
> Did this ever get sent along as a formal patch? I just ran into another
> issue that seems to be similar to the one Arnd sent the initial patch in
> this thread for and it is resolved by this change.

Nick sent this patch in September, and Russell applied it as commit
9d417cbe36ee ("ARM: 9122/1: select HAVE_FUTEX_CMPXCHG").
This addresses the problem for arm, but I think we should really
just remove HAVE_FUTEX_CMPXCHG entirely and require it to
be there for SMP.

I have a patch for that, but that needs a separate fix for sparc32,
which I think nobody is interested in working on. I can post it anyway
to get discussion moving again.

         Arnd