Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.33 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.33;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFULd4autFT=96EckL9vUDgO5t0ESp27+NDVXQHGi7N=PAo-HQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFULd4Zhw=zoDtir03FdPxJD15GZ5N=SV9=4Z45_Q_P9BL1rvQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wgoWOcToLYbuL2GccbNXwj_MH-LxmB_7MMjw6uu50k57Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wgCPbkf0Kdi=4T3LAVvNEH0jxJBWcTiBkrFDBsxkC9mKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFULd4aTY002A7NHRCX21aTpYOE=tnpouBk6hkoeWND=LnT4ww@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wia9vFmyCJPkYg0vvegF8eojLy+DxVtpfoDv-UHoWKfqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFULd4Zj5hTvATZUVYhUGrxH3fiAUWjO9C27UV_USf2H164thQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=whEc2HR3En32uyAufPM3tEh8J4+dot6JyGW=Eg5SEhx7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20231019085432.GQ33217@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CAHk-=wg98L2qaw1U-7NDFQi6dOK=CRO6H-1q1LXuEh348Dk=2Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20231019181359.GA35308@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20231019181359.GA35308@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:22:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgHE-6z1CYGrZx0XSrPif+s7MuA+JZKCWWL5CvbdqWK+A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -tip] x86/percpu: Use C for arch_raw_cpu_ptr()
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>, Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.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>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 at 11:14, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> But are you really saying this_cpu_read() should not imply READ_ONCE()?

Well, Uros is saying that we may be *forced* to have that implication,
much as I really hate it (and wonder at the competence of a compiler
that forces the code-pessimizing 'volatile').

And the "it's not volatile" is actually our historical behavior. The
volatile really is new, and didn't exist before your commit
b59167ac7baf ("x86/percpu: Fix this_cpu_read()").

So the whole "implies READ_ONCE()" really seems to be due to that
*one* mistake in our percpu sequence locking code.

Yes, it's been that way for 5 years now, but it was the other way
around for the preceding decade....

                    Linus