Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-168779-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 11:18:43 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
	syzbot <syzbot+b7c3ba8cdc2f6cf83c21@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] tty: tty_io: remove hung_up_tty_fops
Message-ID: <7aab574e-b6ba-4038-802f-2d64af09d802@paulmck-laptop>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <CANpmjNOY=Qpm3hBu-eN4Xk8n-2VXQRvcQ3_PfwPwNw9MmC8ctw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=whTakjVGgBC5OtoZ5Foo=hd4-g+NZ79nkMDVj6Ug7ARKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wiGzmJXZwHxCE6P0jVBqU4gHEm=zcfj3v+zM_S_9RF4_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <1c886023-ae61-46ba-bb3c-b460c30de937@paulmck-laptop>
 <b3b81374-a19d-4bf5-abb3-15e48c72f01a@paulmck-laptop>
 <ZjPBPWSSdE_VcH_V@boqun-archlinux>
 <2beaba9f-6f83-4a7c-8835-fe5fe88a006c@paulmck-laptop>
 <CAHk-=wg4iAjQb_Na_1rf_EHxe7rsN24he6cjKgdOAPmn7N9oVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <3f2c415d-dc7e-4647-9002-4beb804d885c@paulmck-laptop>
 <CAHk-=whz-pFHfC4nNdrBtWs4KOm7Q2d2quHmFFYzz1Dz7d7LnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whz-pFHfC4nNdrBtWs4KOm7Q2d2quHmFFYzz1Dz7d7LnQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 04, 2024 at 10:50:29AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2024 at 22:08, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > You are right, this is going to need some arch-specific code for a few
> > of the architectures.  Hey, I was hoping!!!
> >
> > The compilers do not currently optimize these things, but things appear
> > to me to be heading in that direction.
> 
> Ok, so it sounds like right now it makes no sense - presumably
> __atomic_load_n() doesn't actually generate better code than
> READ_ONCE() does as-is, and we have the issue with having to make it
> per-architecture anyway.
> 
> But maybe in a couple of years we can revisit this when / if it
> actually generates better code and is more widely applicable.

Completely agreed.

Here is my current thoughts for possible optimizations of non-volatile
memory_order_relaxed atomics:

o	Loads from the same variable that can legitimately be
	reordered to be adjacent to one another can be fused
	into a single load.

o	Stores to the same variable that can legitimately be
	reordered to be adjacent to one another can be replaced
	by the last store in the series.

o	Loads and stores may not be invented.

o	The only way that a computation based on the value from
	a given load can instead use some other load is if the
	two loads are fused into a single load.

Anything that I am missing?

							Thanx, Paul