Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.31 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.31;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231010164234.140750-1-ubizjak@gmail.com> <CAHk-=whYWhZN52SJN-Th9x2L2V-vHtAXUgiy_nSJ3+vQU6ak4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFULd4ZqH3FeG8_mjDvUAU9QiGB36wDu3MzUtadgAgoVuQ9QRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wiALZxieQQmvv5sW15HYB_YwC3d_ma9sdp7Zb4Fb4uK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <F48A9D34-3627-4372-B555-B58CBFC3F241@vmware.com> <CAHk-=wjF4gzCZKh-zN-sY0WpX1kCo+s9gYE9sOcSv0QieH1dwQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFULd4bmOa7G2dXd_mu4J=_bsEs+TbxH691tYx9QQBwJPAma9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wj2Co_g3RQ=JkDZC7PYbRqDPq7mePQ0=eYhhtpEgqJD0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <0617BB2F-D08F-410F-A6EE-4135BB03863C@vmware.com> <CAFULd4Zjd6idrLXuF59cwKxyd1a--DsiJwGQAKai9Tph30dAow@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wgSsfo89ESHcngvPCkQSh_YAJG-0g7fupb+Uv0E1d_EcQ@mail.gmail.com> <7D77A452-E61E-4B8B-B49C-949E1C8E257C@vmware.com>
In-Reply-To: <7D77A452-E61E-4B8B-B49C-949E1C8E257C@vmware.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 16 Oct 2023 13:59:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wj=wC_QWn+mTB5KozH6QaCtG2P8oWSTmhum_JR9NVh+=A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -tip] x86/percpu: Use C for arch_raw_cpu_ptr()
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
Cc:     Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 13:35, Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote:
>
> I don=E2=80=99t think it means that it the aliasing does not work; I thin=
k it all means that
> it actually works *too well*.

Hmm. The *only* case I can think of is __switch_to() itself when doing that

        raw_cpu_write(pcpu_hot.current_task, next_p);

and arguably that part should never have been done in C at all, but here we=
 are.

I do think that from a sanity standpoint, it would be good to split
"__switch_to()" into two: a "before stack switch" and "after stack
switch", and change 'current' from within the asm section (ie do that
part in __switch_to_asm").

Or maybe we should just keep the single "__switch_to()" function, but
make it clear that it happens *after* current has been changed (and
maybe rename it to 'funish_switch_to()" or something like that to make
it clearer).

Because the situation with __switch_to() right now is outright
confusing, where it has 'prevp' and 'nextp', but then implicitly uses
'current' in two different ways.

Ugh.

               Linus