Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E60D3C678D4 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 22:18:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229849AbjCBWSv (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Mar 2023 17:18:51 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60654 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229506AbjCBWSq (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Mar 2023 17:18:46 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4C43A251 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 14:18:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1677795481; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=uQ5SSw6v6jkYdu8pUhZUUJgBB1SJYEgd5Q/CexLSglM=; b=T+AYtlZWRyxW5eTxVOnTPR9NWJ9DxPdroXA4BBIIIj681jeotRO1RvUAAycnt3x8ImvGFX BlQ5yXdTqWCNadf/XBqYR0JNnrOeU+YdBMrhw0i9Y2RPijQW1ETjY+k35aTsN7YhOY/Wma wvHhIaIyZuYQC1kk/tU0MpC4jRiw+/8= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-227-VAq8u0t7MzKbczVyVcrBkQ-1; Thu, 02 Mar 2023 16:17:19 -0500 X-MC-Unique: VAq8u0t7MzKbczVyVcrBkQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA74A185A78B; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 21:17:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tpad.localdomain (ovpn-112-2.gru2.redhat.com [10.97.112.2]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5FA740C83B6; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 21:17:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by tpad.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 37D79400E055B; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 18:04:25 -0300 (-03) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2023 18:04:25 -0300 From: Marcelo Tosatti To: Peter Xu Cc: Christoph Lameter , Aaron Tomlin , Frederic Weisbecker , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] this_cpu_cmpxchg: ARM64: switch this_cpu_cmpxchg to locked, add _local function Message-ID: References: <20230209150150.380060673@redhat.com> <20230209153204.683821550@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.1 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 03:53:12PM -0500, Peter Xu wrote: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 12:01:52PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > Goal is to have vmstat_shepherd to transfer from > > per-CPU counters to global counters remotely. For this, > > an atomic this_cpu_cmpxchg is necessary. > > > > Following the kernel convention for cmpxchg/cmpxchg_local, > > change ARM's this_cpu_cmpxchg_ helpers to be atomic, > > and add this_cpu_cmpxchg_local_ helpers which are not atomic. > > I can follow on the necessity of having the _local version, however two > questions below. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Marcelo Tosatti > > > > Index: linux-vmstat-remote/arch/arm64/include/asm/percpu.h > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-vmstat-remote.orig/arch/arm64/include/asm/percpu.h > > +++ linux-vmstat-remote/arch/arm64/include/asm/percpu.h > > @@ -232,13 +232,23 @@ PERCPU_RET_OP(add, add, ldadd) > > _pcp_protect_return(xchg_relaxed, pcp, val) > > > > #define this_cpu_cmpxchg_1(pcp, o, n) \ > > - _pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg_relaxed, pcp, o, n) > > + _pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg, pcp, o, n) > > #define this_cpu_cmpxchg_2(pcp, o, n) \ > > - _pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg_relaxed, pcp, o, n) > > + _pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg, pcp, o, n) > > #define this_cpu_cmpxchg_4(pcp, o, n) \ > > - _pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg_relaxed, pcp, o, n) > > + _pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg, pcp, o, n) > > #define this_cpu_cmpxchg_8(pcp, o, n) \ > > + _pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg, pcp, o, n) > > This makes this_cpu_cmpxchg_*() not only non-local, but also (especially > for arm64) memory barrier implications since cmpxchg() has a strong memory > barrier, while the old this_cpu_cmpxchg*() doesn't have, afaiu. > > Maybe it's not a big deal if the audience of this helper is still limited > (e.g. we can add memory barriers if we don't want strict ordering > implication), but just to check with you on whether it's intended, and if > so whether it may worth some comments. It happens that on ARM-64 cmpxchg_local == cmpxchg_relaxed. See cf10b79a7d88edc689479af989b3a88e9adf07ff. This patchset maintains the current behaviour of this_cpu_cmpxch (for this_cpu_cmpxch_local), which was: #define this_cpu_cmpxchg_1(pcp, o, n) \ - _pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg_relaxed, pcp, o, n) + _pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg, pcp, o, n) #define this_cpu_cmpxchg_2(pcp, o, n) \ - _pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg_relaxed, pcp, o, n) + _pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg, pcp, o, n) #define this_cpu_cmpxchg_4(pcp, o, n) \ - _pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg_relaxed, pcp, o, n) + _pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg, pcp, o, n) #define this_cpu_cmpxchg_8(pcp, o, n) \ + _pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg, pcp, o, n) > > + > > +#define this_cpu_cmpxchg_local_1(pcp, o, n) \ > > _pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg_relaxed, pcp, o, n) > > +#define this_cpu_cmpxchg_local_2(pcp, o, n) \ > > + _pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg_relaxed, pcp, o, n) > > +#define this_cpu_cmpxchg_local_4(pcp, o, n) \ > > + _pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg_relaxed, pcp, o, n) > > +#define this_cpu_cmpxchg_local_8(pcp, o, n) \ > > + _pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg_relaxed, pcp, o, n) > > I think cmpxchg_relaxed()==cmpxchg_local() here for aarch64, however should > we still use cmpxchg_local() to pair with this_cpu_cmpxchg_local_*()? Since cmpxchg_local = cmpxchg_relaxed, seems like this is not necessary. > Nothing about your patch along since it was the same before, but I'm > wondering whether this is a good time to switchover. I would say that another patch is more appropriate to change this, if desired. > The other thing is would it be good to copy arch-list for each arch patch? > Maybe it'll help to extend the audience too. Yes, should have done that (or CC each individual maintainer). Will do on next version. Thanks.