From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
dja@axtens.net, elver@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, christophe.leroy@c-s.fr,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
x86@kernel.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull powerpc/linux.git powerpc-5.5-2 tag (topic/kasan-bitops)
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 14:16:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191206131650.GM2827@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87blslei5o.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 11:46:11PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Hi Linus,
>
> Please pull another powerpc update for 5.5.
>
> As you'll see from the diffstat this is mostly not powerpc code. In order to do
> KASAN instrumentation of bitops we needed to juggle some of the generic bitops
> headers.
>
> Because those changes potentially affect several architectures I wasn't
> confident putting them directly into my tree, so I've had them sitting in a
> topic branch. That branch (topic/kasan-bitops) has been in linux-next for a
> month, and I've not had any feedback that it's caused any problems.
>
> So I think this is good to merge, but it's a standalone pull so if anyone does
> object it's not a problem.
No objections, but here:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/powerpc/linux.git/commit/?h=topic/kasan-bitops&id=81d2c6f81996e01fbcd2b5aeefbb519e21c806e9
you write:
"Currently bitops-instrumented.h assumes that the architecture provides
atomic, non-atomic and locking bitops (e.g. both set_bit and __set_bit).
This is true on x86 and s390, but is not always true: there is a
generic bitops/non-atomic.h header that provides generic non-atomic
operations, and also a generic bitops/lock.h for locking operations."
Is there any actual benefit for PPC to using their own atomic bitops
over bitops/lock.h ? I'm thinking that the generic code is fairly
optimal for most LL/SC architectures.
I've been meaning to audit the various architectures and move them over,
but alas, it's something I've not yet had time for...
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, elver@google.com,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, dja@axtens.net
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull powerpc/linux.git powerpc-5.5-2 tag (topic/kasan-bitops)
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 14:16:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191206131650.GM2827@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87blslei5o.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 11:46:11PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Hi Linus,
>
> Please pull another powerpc update for 5.5.
>
> As you'll see from the diffstat this is mostly not powerpc code. In order to do
> KASAN instrumentation of bitops we needed to juggle some of the generic bitops
> headers.
>
> Because those changes potentially affect several architectures I wasn't
> confident putting them directly into my tree, so I've had them sitting in a
> topic branch. That branch (topic/kasan-bitops) has been in linux-next for a
> month, and I've not had any feedback that it's caused any problems.
>
> So I think this is good to merge, but it's a standalone pull so if anyone does
> object it's not a problem.
No objections, but here:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/powerpc/linux.git/commit/?h=topic/kasan-bitops&id=81d2c6f81996e01fbcd2b5aeefbb519e21c806e9
you write:
"Currently bitops-instrumented.h assumes that the architecture provides
atomic, non-atomic and locking bitops (e.g. both set_bit and __set_bit).
This is true on x86 and s390, but is not always true: there is a
generic bitops/non-atomic.h header that provides generic non-atomic
operations, and also a generic bitops/lock.h for locking operations."
Is there any actual benefit for PPC to using their own atomic bitops
over bitops/lock.h ? I'm thinking that the generic code is fairly
optimal for most LL/SC architectures.
I've been meaning to audit the various architectures and move them over,
but alas, it's something I've not yet had time for...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-06 13:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 86+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-06 12:46 [GIT PULL] Please pull powerpc/linux.git powerpc-5.5-2 tag (topic/kasan-bitops) Michael Ellerman
2019-12-06 12:46 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-12-06 13:16 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2019-12-06 13:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-10 5:38 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-12-10 5:38 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-12-10 10:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-10 10:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-11 0:29 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-12-11 0:29 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-12-12 5:42 ` READ_ONCE() + STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG == :/ (was Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull powerpc/linux.git powerpc-5.5-2 tag (topic/kasan-bitops)) Michael Ellerman
2019-12-12 5:42 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-12-12 8:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-12 8:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-12 10:07 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-12 10:07 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-12 10:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-12 10:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-12 17:04 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-12 17:04 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-12 17:16 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-12 17:16 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-12 17:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-12-12 17:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-12-12 17:50 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-12-12 17:50 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-12-12 18:06 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-12 18:06 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-12 18:29 ` Christian Borntraeger
2019-12-12 18:29 ` Christian Borntraeger
2019-12-12 18:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-12-12 18:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-12-12 19:34 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-12 19:34 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-12 20:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-12 20:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-12 20:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-12 20:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-13 10:47 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2019-12-13 10:47 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2019-12-13 12:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-13 12:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-13 14:28 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2019-12-13 14:28 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2019-12-12 20:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-12-12 20:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-12-13 13:17 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-12-13 13:17 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-12-13 21:32 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-12-13 21:32 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-12-13 22:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-12-13 22:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-12-16 10:28 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-16 10:28 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-16 11:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-16 11:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-16 12:06 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-12-16 12:06 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-12-17 17:07 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-17 17:07 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-17 18:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-12-17 18:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-12-17 18:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-12-17 18:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-12-17 18:31 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-17 18:31 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-17 18:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-12-17 18:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-12-18 12:17 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-12-18 12:17 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-12-19 12:11 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-19 12:11 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-18 10:22 ` Christian Borntraeger
2019-12-18 10:22 ` Christian Borntraeger
2019-12-18 10:35 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-18 10:35 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-13 12:07 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-12-13 12:07 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-12-13 13:53 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-12-13 13:53 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-12-13 21:06 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-12-13 21:06 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-12-12 15:10 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-12-12 15:10 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-12-06 22:15 ` [GIT PULL] Please pull powerpc/linux.git powerpc-5.5-2 tag (topic/kasan-bitops) pr-tracker-bot
2019-12-06 22:15 ` pr-tracker-bot
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=20191206131650.GM2827@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
--cc=dja@axtens.net \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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.