Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sat, 5 Nov 2022 16:14:19 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        willy@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        aarcange@redhat.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com,
        jroedel@suse.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/13] x86_64: Remove pointless set_64bit() usage
Message-ID: <Y2Z9yzmtYtmYi5rx@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20221022111403.531902164@infradead.org>
 <20221022114425.168036718@infradead.org>
 <Y2QR/BRHjjYUNszh@dev-arch.thelio-3990X>
 <CAFULd4bkn3i0ds1ywhxAZBQH+1O-zbPWscUqjoEcv4xvnxOnSw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y2QYHZsZNs33NXZB@dev-arch.thelio-3990X>
 <CAHk-=wjCBOwSWec+=h08q3Gbr4UjSfX46GrQjzHZLFokziS7nA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y2U3WdU61FvYlpUh@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAHk-=wggJFQJmWtvsFVt69hzRXW3zD5+9q-1Laz=NoZQ8Fy9Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y2ZlS3SHeAPOkVmN@zx2c4.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y2ZlS3SHeAPOkVmN@zx2c4.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Nov 05, 2022 at 02:29:47PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 10:15:08AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 9:01 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > So cmpxchg_double() does a cmpxchg on a double long value and is
> > > currently supported by: i386, x86_64, arm64 and s390.
> > >
> > > On all those, except i386, two longs are u128.
> > >
> > > So how about we introduce u128 and cmpxchg128 -- then it directly
> > > mirrors the u64 and cmpxchg64 usage we already have. It then also
> > > naturally imposses the alignment thing.
> > 
> > Ack, except that we might have some "u128" users that do *not*
> > necessarily want any alignment thing.
> > 
> > But maybe we could at least start with an u128 type that is marked as
> > being fully aligned, and if some other user comes in down the line
> > that wants relaxed alignment we can call it "u128_unaligned" or
> > something.
> 
> Hm, sounds maybe not so nice for another use case: arithmetic code that
> makes use of u128 for efficient computations, but otherwise has
> no particular alignment requirements. For example, `typedef __uint128_t
> u128;` in:

Natural alignment is... natural. Making it unaligned is quite mad. That
whole u64 is not naturally aligned on i386 thing Linus referred to is a
sodding pain in the backside.

If the code has no alignment requirements, natural alignment is as good
as any. And if it does have requirements, you can use u128_unaligned.

Also:

$ ./align
16, 16

---

#include <stdio.h>

int main(int argx, char **argv)
{
	__int128 a;

	printf("%d, %d\n", sizeof(a), __alignof(a));
	return 0;
}