All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aryabinin@virtuozzo.com,
	catalin.marinas@arm.com, dvyukov@google.com, will.deacon@arm.com
Subject: [RFC PATCH] locking/atomics/powerpc: Clarify why the cmpxchg_relaxed() family of APIs falls back to full cmpxchg()
Date: Sat, 5 May 2018 12:35:50 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180505103550.s7xsnto7tgppkmle@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180505101609.5wb56j4mspjkokmw@tardis>


* Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 11:38:29AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > So we could do the following simplification on top of that:
> > > > > 
> > > > >  #ifndef atomic_fetch_dec_relaxed
> > > > >  # ifndef atomic_fetch_dec
> > > > >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec(v)		atomic_fetch_sub(1, (v))
> > > > >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_relaxed(v)	atomic_fetch_sub_relaxed(1, (v))
> > > > >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_acquire(v)	atomic_fetch_sub_acquire(1, (v))
> > > > >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_release(v)	atomic_fetch_sub_release(1, (v))
> > > > >  # else
> > > > >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_relaxed		atomic_fetch_dec
> > > > >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_acquire		atomic_fetch_dec
> > > > >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_release		atomic_fetch_dec
> > > > >  # endif
> > > > >  #else
> > > > >  # ifndef atomic_fetch_dec
> > > > >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec(...)		__atomic_op_fence(atomic_fetch_dec, __VA_ARGS__)
> > > > >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_acquire(...)	__atomic_op_acquire(atomic_fetch_dec, __VA_ARGS__)
> > > > >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_release(...)	__atomic_op_release(atomic_fetch_dec, __VA_ARGS__)
> > > > >  # endif
> > > > >  #endif
> > > > 
> > > > This would disallow an architecture to override just fetch_dec_release for
> > > > instance.
> > > 
> > > Couldn't such a crazy arch just define _all_ the 3 APIs in this group?
> > > That's really a small price and makes the place pay the complexity
> > > price that does the weirdness...
> > > 
> > > > I don't think there currently is any architecture that does that, but the
> > > > intent was to allow it to override anything and only provide defaults where it
> > > > does not.
> > > 
> > > I'd argue that if a new arch only defines one of these APIs that's probably a bug. 
> > > If they absolutely want to do it, they still can - by defining all 3 APIs.
> > > 
> > > So there's no loss in arch flexibility.
> > 
> > BTW., PowerPC for example is already in such a situation, it does not define 
> > atomic_cmpxchg_release(), only the other APIs:
> > 
> > #define atomic_cmpxchg(v, o, n) (cmpxchg(&((v)->counter), (o), (n)))
> > #define atomic_cmpxchg_relaxed(v, o, n) \
> > 	cmpxchg_relaxed(&((v)->counter), (o), (n))
> > #define atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(v, o, n) \
> > 	cmpxchg_acquire(&((v)->counter), (o), (n))
> > 
> > Was it really the intention on the PowerPC side that the generic code falls back 
> > to cmpxchg(), i.e.:
> > 
> > #  define atomic_cmpxchg_release(...)           __atomic_op_release(atomic_cmpxchg, __VA_ARGS__)
> > 
> 
> So ppc has its own definition __atomic_op_release() in
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h:
> 
> 	#define __atomic_op_release(op, args...)				\
> 	({									\
> 		__asm__ __volatile__(PPC_RELEASE_BARRIER "" : : : "memory");	\
> 		op##_relaxed(args);						\
> 	})
> 
> , and PPC_RELEASE_BARRIER is lwsync, so we map to
> 
> 	lwsync();
> 	atomic_cmpxchg_relaxed(v, o, n);
> 
> And the reason, why we don't define atomic_cmpxchg_release() but define
> atomic_cmpxchg_acquire() is that, atomic_cmpxchg_*() could provide no
> ordering guarantee if the cmp fails, we did this for
> atomic_cmpxchg_acquire() but not for atomic_cmpxchg_release(), because
> doing so may introduce a memory barrier inside a ll/sc critical section,
> please see the comment before __cmpxchg_u32_acquire() in
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h:
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * cmpxchg family don't have order guarantee if cmp part fails, therefore we
> 	 * can avoid superfluous barriers if we use assembly code to implement
> 	 * cmpxchg() and cmpxchg_acquire(), however we don't do the similar for
> 	 * cmpxchg_release() because that will result in putting a barrier in the
> 	 * middle of a ll/sc loop, which is probably a bad idea. For example, this
> 	 * might cause the conditional store more likely to fail.
> 	 */

Makes sense, thanks a lot for the explanation, missed that comment in the middle 
of the assembly functions!

So the patch I sent is buggy, please disregard it.

May I suggest the patch below? No change in functionality, but it documents the 
lack of the cmpxchg_release() APIs and maps them explicitly to the full cmpxchg() 
version. (Which the generic code does now in a rather roundabout way.)

Also, the change to arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h has no functional effect 
right now either, but should anyone add a _relaxed() variant in the future, with 
this change atomic_cmpxchg_release() and atomic64_cmpxchg_release() will pick that 
up automatically.

Would this be acceptable?

Thanks,

	Ingo

---
 arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h  |  4 ++++
 arch/powerpc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h | 13 +++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h
index 682b3e6a1e21..f7a6f29acb12 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h
@@ -213,6 +213,8 @@ static __inline__ int atomic_dec_return_relaxed(atomic_t *v)
 	cmpxchg_relaxed(&((v)->counter), (o), (n))
 #define atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(v, o, n) \
 	cmpxchg_acquire(&((v)->counter), (o), (n))
+#define atomic_cmpxchg_release(v, o, n) \
+	cmpxchg_release(&((v)->counter), (o), (n))
 
 #define atomic_xchg(v, new) (xchg(&((v)->counter), new))
 #define atomic_xchg_relaxed(v, new) xchg_relaxed(&((v)->counter), (new))
@@ -519,6 +521,8 @@ static __inline__ long atomic64_dec_if_positive(atomic64_t *v)
 	cmpxchg_relaxed(&((v)->counter), (o), (n))
 #define atomic64_cmpxchg_acquire(v, o, n) \
 	cmpxchg_acquire(&((v)->counter), (o), (n))
+#define atomic64_cmpxchg_release(v, o, n) \
+	cmpxchg_release(&((v)->counter), (o), (n))
 
 #define atomic64_xchg(v, new) (xchg(&((v)->counter), new))
 #define atomic64_xchg_relaxed(v, new) xchg_relaxed(&((v)->counter), (new))
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h
index 9b001f1f6b32..1f1d35062f3a 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h
@@ -512,6 +512,13 @@ __cmpxchg_acquire(void *ptr, unsigned long old, unsigned long new,
 			(unsigned long)_o_, (unsigned long)_n_,		\
 			sizeof(*(ptr)));				\
 })
+
+/*
+ * cmpxchg_release() falls back to a full cmpxchg(),
+ * see the comments at __cmpxchg_u32_acquire():
+ */
+#define cmpxchg_release cmpxchg
+
 #ifdef CONFIG_PPC64
 #define cmpxchg64(ptr, o, n)						\
   ({									\
@@ -538,5 +545,11 @@ __cmpxchg_acquire(void *ptr, unsigned long old, unsigned long new,
 #define cmpxchg64_local(ptr, o, n) __cmpxchg64_local_generic((ptr), (o), (n))
 #endif
 
+/*
+ * cmpxchg64_release() falls back to a full cmpxchg(),
+ * see the comments at __cmpxchg_u32_acquire():
+ */
+#define cmpxchg64_release cmpxchg64
+
 #endif /* __KERNEL__ */
 #endif /* _ASM_POWERPC_CMPXCHG_H_ */

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: mingo@kernel.org (Ingo Molnar)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH] locking/atomics/powerpc: Clarify why the cmpxchg_relaxed() family of APIs falls back to full cmpxchg()
Date: Sat, 5 May 2018 12:35:50 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180505103550.s7xsnto7tgppkmle@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180505101609.5wb56j4mspjkokmw@tardis>


* Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 11:38:29AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > So we could do the following simplification on top of that:
> > > > > 
> > > > >  #ifndef atomic_fetch_dec_relaxed
> > > > >  # ifndef atomic_fetch_dec
> > > > >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec(v)		atomic_fetch_sub(1, (v))
> > > > >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_relaxed(v)	atomic_fetch_sub_relaxed(1, (v))
> > > > >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_acquire(v)	atomic_fetch_sub_acquire(1, (v))
> > > > >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_release(v)	atomic_fetch_sub_release(1, (v))
> > > > >  # else
> > > > >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_relaxed		atomic_fetch_dec
> > > > >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_acquire		atomic_fetch_dec
> > > > >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_release		atomic_fetch_dec
> > > > >  # endif
> > > > >  #else
> > > > >  # ifndef atomic_fetch_dec
> > > > >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec(...)		__atomic_op_fence(atomic_fetch_dec, __VA_ARGS__)
> > > > >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_acquire(...)	__atomic_op_acquire(atomic_fetch_dec, __VA_ARGS__)
> > > > >  #  define atomic_fetch_dec_release(...)	__atomic_op_release(atomic_fetch_dec, __VA_ARGS__)
> > > > >  # endif
> > > > >  #endif
> > > > 
> > > > This would disallow an architecture to override just fetch_dec_release for
> > > > instance.
> > > 
> > > Couldn't such a crazy arch just define _all_ the 3 APIs in this group?
> > > That's really a small price and makes the place pay the complexity
> > > price that does the weirdness...
> > > 
> > > > I don't think there currently is any architecture that does that, but the
> > > > intent was to allow it to override anything and only provide defaults where it
> > > > does not.
> > > 
> > > I'd argue that if a new arch only defines one of these APIs that's probably a bug. 
> > > If they absolutely want to do it, they still can - by defining all 3 APIs.
> > > 
> > > So there's no loss in arch flexibility.
> > 
> > BTW., PowerPC for example is already in such a situation, it does not define 
> > atomic_cmpxchg_release(), only the other APIs:
> > 
> > #define atomic_cmpxchg(v, o, n) (cmpxchg(&((v)->counter), (o), (n)))
> > #define atomic_cmpxchg_relaxed(v, o, n) \
> > 	cmpxchg_relaxed(&((v)->counter), (o), (n))
> > #define atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(v, o, n) \
> > 	cmpxchg_acquire(&((v)->counter), (o), (n))
> > 
> > Was it really the intention on the PowerPC side that the generic code falls back 
> > to cmpxchg(), i.e.:
> > 
> > #  define atomic_cmpxchg_release(...)           __atomic_op_release(atomic_cmpxchg, __VA_ARGS__)
> > 
> 
> So ppc has its own definition __atomic_op_release() in
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h:
> 
> 	#define __atomic_op_release(op, args...)				\
> 	({									\
> 		__asm__ __volatile__(PPC_RELEASE_BARRIER "" : : : "memory");	\
> 		op##_relaxed(args);						\
> 	})
> 
> , and PPC_RELEASE_BARRIER is lwsync, so we map to
> 
> 	lwsync();
> 	atomic_cmpxchg_relaxed(v, o, n);
> 
> And the reason, why we don't define atomic_cmpxchg_release() but define
> atomic_cmpxchg_acquire() is that, atomic_cmpxchg_*() could provide no
> ordering guarantee if the cmp fails, we did this for
> atomic_cmpxchg_acquire() but not for atomic_cmpxchg_release(), because
> doing so may introduce a memory barrier inside a ll/sc critical section,
> please see the comment before __cmpxchg_u32_acquire() in
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h:
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * cmpxchg family don't have order guarantee if cmp part fails, therefore we
> 	 * can avoid superfluous barriers if we use assembly code to implement
> 	 * cmpxchg() and cmpxchg_acquire(), however we don't do the similar for
> 	 * cmpxchg_release() because that will result in putting a barrier in the
> 	 * middle of a ll/sc loop, which is probably a bad idea. For example, this
> 	 * might cause the conditional store more likely to fail.
> 	 */

Makes sense, thanks a lot for the explanation, missed that comment in the middle 
of the assembly functions!

So the patch I sent is buggy, please disregard it.

May I suggest the patch below? No change in functionality, but it documents the 
lack of the cmpxchg_release() APIs and maps them explicitly to the full cmpxchg() 
version. (Which the generic code does now in a rather roundabout way.)

Also, the change to arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h has no functional effect 
right now either, but should anyone add a _relaxed() variant in the future, with 
this change atomic_cmpxchg_release() and atomic64_cmpxchg_release() will pick that 
up automatically.

Would this be acceptable?

Thanks,

	Ingo

---
 arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h  |  4 ++++
 arch/powerpc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h | 13 +++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h
index 682b3e6a1e21..f7a6f29acb12 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h
@@ -213,6 +213,8 @@ static __inline__ int atomic_dec_return_relaxed(atomic_t *v)
 	cmpxchg_relaxed(&((v)->counter), (o), (n))
 #define atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(v, o, n) \
 	cmpxchg_acquire(&((v)->counter), (o), (n))
+#define atomic_cmpxchg_release(v, o, n) \
+	cmpxchg_release(&((v)->counter), (o), (n))
 
 #define atomic_xchg(v, new) (xchg(&((v)->counter), new))
 #define atomic_xchg_relaxed(v, new) xchg_relaxed(&((v)->counter), (new))
@@ -519,6 +521,8 @@ static __inline__ long atomic64_dec_if_positive(atomic64_t *v)
 	cmpxchg_relaxed(&((v)->counter), (o), (n))
 #define atomic64_cmpxchg_acquire(v, o, n) \
 	cmpxchg_acquire(&((v)->counter), (o), (n))
+#define atomic64_cmpxchg_release(v, o, n) \
+	cmpxchg_release(&((v)->counter), (o), (n))
 
 #define atomic64_xchg(v, new) (xchg(&((v)->counter), new))
 #define atomic64_xchg_relaxed(v, new) xchg_relaxed(&((v)->counter), (new))
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h
index 9b001f1f6b32..1f1d35062f3a 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h
@@ -512,6 +512,13 @@ __cmpxchg_acquire(void *ptr, unsigned long old, unsigned long new,
 			(unsigned long)_o_, (unsigned long)_n_,		\
 			sizeof(*(ptr)));				\
 })
+
+/*
+ * cmpxchg_release() falls back to a full cmpxchg(),
+ * see the comments at __cmpxchg_u32_acquire():
+ */
+#define cmpxchg_release cmpxchg
+
 #ifdef CONFIG_PPC64
 #define cmpxchg64(ptr, o, n)						\
   ({									\
@@ -538,5 +545,11 @@ __cmpxchg_acquire(void *ptr, unsigned long old, unsigned long new,
 #define cmpxchg64_local(ptr, o, n) __cmpxchg64_local_generic((ptr), (o), (n))
 #endif
 
+/*
+ * cmpxchg64_release() falls back to a full cmpxchg(),
+ * see the comments at __cmpxchg_u32_acquire():
+ */
+#define cmpxchg64_release cmpxchg64
+
 #endif /* __KERNEL__ */
 #endif /* _ASM_POWERPC_CMPXCHG_H_ */

  reply	other threads:[~2018-05-05 10:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 103+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-05-04 17:39 [PATCH 0/6] arm64: add instrumented atomics Mark Rutland
2018-05-04 17:39 ` Mark Rutland
2018-05-04 17:39 ` [PATCH 1/6] locking/atomic, asm-generic: instrument ordering variants Mark Rutland
2018-05-04 17:39   ` Mark Rutland
2018-05-04 18:01   ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-04 18:01     ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-04 18:09     ` Mark Rutland
2018-05-04 18:09       ` Mark Rutland
2018-05-04 18:24       ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-04 18:24         ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-05  9:12         ` Mark Rutland
2018-05-05  9:12           ` Mark Rutland
2018-05-05  8:11       ` [PATCH] locking/atomics: Clean up the atomic.h maze of #defines Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05  8:11         ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05  8:36         ` [PATCH] locking/atomics: Simplify the op definitions in atomic.h some more Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05  8:36           ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05  8:54           ` [PATCH] locking/atomics: Combine the atomic_andnot() and atomic64_andnot() API definitions Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05  8:54             ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-06 12:15             ` [tip:locking/core] " tip-bot for Ingo Molnar
2018-05-06 14:15             ` [PATCH] " Andrea Parri
2018-05-06 14:15               ` Andrea Parri
2018-05-06 12:14           ` [tip:locking/core] locking/atomics: Simplify the op definitions in atomic.h some more tip-bot for Ingo Molnar
2018-05-09  7:33             ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-09 13:03               ` Will Deacon
2018-05-15  8:54                 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-15  8:35               ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-15 11:41                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-15 12:13                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-15 15:43                   ` Mark Rutland
2018-05-15 17:10                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-15 17:53                       ` Mark Rutland
2018-05-15 18:11                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-15 18:15                           ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-15 18:52                             ` Linus Torvalds
2018-05-15 19:39                               ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-21 17:12                           ` Mark Rutland
2018-05-06 14:12           ` [PATCH] " Andrea Parri
2018-05-06 14:12             ` Andrea Parri
2018-05-06 14:57             ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-06 14:57               ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-07  9:54               ` Andrea Parri
2018-05-07  9:54                 ` Andrea Parri
2018-05-18 18:43               ` Palmer Dabbelt
2018-05-18 18:43                 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2018-05-05  8:47         ` [PATCH] locking/atomics: Clean up the atomic.h maze of #defines Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-05  8:47           ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-05  9:04           ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05  9:04             ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05  9:24             ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-05  9:24               ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-05  9:38             ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05  9:38               ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05 10:00               ` [RFC PATCH] locking/atomics/powerpc: Introduce optimized cmpxchg_release() family of APIs for PowerPC Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05 10:00                 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05 10:26                 ` Boqun Feng
2018-05-05 10:26                   ` Boqun Feng
2018-05-06  1:56                 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2018-05-06  1:56                   ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2018-05-05 10:16               ` [PATCH] locking/atomics: Clean up the atomic.h maze of #defines Boqun Feng
2018-05-05 10:16                 ` Boqun Feng
2018-05-05 10:35                 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2018-05-05 10:35                   ` [RFC PATCH] locking/atomics/powerpc: Clarify why the cmpxchg_relaxed() family of APIs falls back to full cmpxchg() Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05 11:28                   ` Boqun Feng
2018-05-05 11:28                     ` Boqun Feng
2018-05-05 13:27                     ` [PATCH] locking/atomics/powerpc: Move cmpxchg helpers to asm/cmpxchg.h and define the full set of cmpxchg APIs Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05 13:27                       ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05 14:03                       ` Boqun Feng
2018-05-05 14:03                         ` Boqun Feng
2018-05-06 12:11                         ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-06 12:11                           ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-07  1:04                           ` Boqun Feng
2018-05-07  1:04                             ` Boqun Feng
2018-05-07  6:50                             ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-07  6:50                               ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-06 12:13                     ` [tip:locking/core] " tip-bot for Boqun Feng
2018-05-07 13:31                       ` [PATCH v2] " Boqun Feng
2018-05-07 13:31                         ` Boqun Feng
2018-05-05  9:05           ` [PATCH] locking/atomics: Clean up the atomic.h maze of #defines Dmitry Vyukov
2018-05-05  9:05             ` Dmitry Vyukov
2018-05-05  9:32             ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-05  9:32               ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-07  6:43               ` [RFC PATCH] locking/atomics/x86/64: Clean up and fix details of <asm/atomic64_64.h> Ingo Molnar
2018-05-07  6:43                 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05  9:09           ` [PATCH] locking/atomics: Clean up the atomic.h maze of #defines Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05  9:09             ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05  9:29             ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-05  9:29               ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-05 10:48               ` [PATCH] locking/atomics: Shorten the __atomic_op() defines to __op() Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05 10:48                 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05 10:59                 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05 10:59                   ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-06 12:15                 ` [tip:locking/core] " tip-bot for Ingo Molnar
2018-05-06 12:14         ` [tip:locking/core] locking/atomics: Clean up the atomic.h maze of #defines tip-bot for Ingo Molnar
2018-05-04 17:39 ` [PATCH 2/6] locking/atomic, asm-generic: instrument atomic*andnot*() Mark Rutland
2018-05-04 17:39   ` Mark Rutland
2018-05-04 17:39 ` [PATCH 3/6] arm64: use <linux/atomic.h> for cmpxchg Mark Rutland
2018-05-04 17:39   ` Mark Rutland
2018-05-04 17:39 ` [PATCH 4/6] arm64: fix assembly constraints " Mark Rutland
2018-05-04 17:39   ` Mark Rutland
2018-05-04 17:39 ` [PATCH 5/6] arm64: use instrumented atomics Mark Rutland
2018-05-04 17:39   ` Mark Rutland
2018-05-04 17:39 ` [PATCH 6/6] arm64: instrument smp_{load_acquire,store_release} Mark Rutland
2018-05-04 17:39   ` Mark Rutland

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180505103550.s7xsnto7tgppkmle@gmail.com \
    --to=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=aryabinin@virtuozzo.com \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=dvyukov@google.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.