Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-166989-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 23:07:57 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	elver@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	peterz@infradead.org, dianders@chromium.org, pmladek@suse.com,
	arnd@arndb.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
	Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@linux.intel.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 cmpxchg 12/13] sh: Emulate one-byte cmpxchg
Message-ID: <20240502220757.GL2118490@ZenIV>
References: <b67e79d4-06cb-4a45-a906-b9e0fbae22c5@paulmck-laptop>
 <20240501230130.1111603-12-paulmck@kernel.org>
 <1376850f47279e3a3f4f40e3de2784ae3ac30414.camel@physik.fu-berlin.de>
 <b7ae0feb-d401-43ee-8d5f-ce62ca224638@paulmck-laptop>
 <6f7743601fe7bd50c2855a8fd1ed8f766ef03cac.camel@physik.fu-berlin.de>
 <9a4e1928-961d-43af-9951-71786b97062a@paulmck-laptop>
 <20240502205345.GK2118490@ZenIV>
 <0a429959-935d-4800-8d0c-4e010951996d@paulmck-laptop>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0a429959-935d-4800-8d0c-4e010951996d@paulmck-laptop>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>

On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 02:18:48PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> If you are only ever doing atomic read-modify-write operations on the
> byte in question, then agreed, you don't care about byte loads and stores.
> 
> But there are use cases that do mix smp_store_release() with cmpxchg(),
> and those use cases won't work unless at least byte store is implemented.
> Or I suppose that we could use cmpxchg() instead of smp_store_release(),
> but that is wasteful for architectures that do support byte stores.
> 
> So EV56 adds the byte loads and stores needed for those use cases.
> 
> Or am I missing your point?

arch/alpha/include/cmpxchg.h:
#define arch_cmpxchg(ptr, o, n)                                         \
({                                                                      \
        __typeof__(*(ptr)) __ret;                                       \
        __typeof__(*(ptr)) _o_ = (o);                                   \
        __typeof__(*(ptr)) _n_ = (n);                                   \
        smp_mb();                                                       \
        __ret = (__typeof__(*(ptr))) __cmpxchg((ptr),                   \
                (unsigned long)_o_, (unsigned long)_n_, sizeof(*(ptr)));\
        smp_mb();                                                       \
        __ret;                                                          \
})

Are those smp_mb() in there enough?

I'm probably missing your point, though - what mix of cmpxchg and
smp_store_release on 8bit values?