From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28303C433B4 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 17:22:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32D1761168 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 17:22:52 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 32D1761168 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.crashing.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FL8SB34qjz3bvZ for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 03:22:50 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=permerror (SPF Permanent Error: Unknown mechanism found: ip:192.40.192.88/32) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.crashing.org (client-ip=63.228.1.57; helo=gate.crashing.org; envelope-from=segher@kernel.crashing.org; receiver=) Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FL8Rp5xqhz304X for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 03:22:29 +1000 (AEST) Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id 13EHK42L023677; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 12:20:04 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 13EHK3HZ023672; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 12:20:03 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 12:20:03 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: David Laight Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] powerpc/bitops: Use immediate operand when possible Message-ID: <20210414172003.GX26583@gate.crashing.org> References: <09da6fec57792d6559d1ea64e00be9870b02dab4.1617896018.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> <20210412215428.GM26583@gate.crashing.org> <20210413215803.GT26583@gate.crashing.org> <1618365589.67fxh7cot9.astroid@bobo.none> <20210414122409.GV26583@gate.crashing.org> <20210414151921.GW26583@gate.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , Paul Mackerras , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Nicholas Piggin Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 03:32:04PM +0000, David Laight wrote: > From: Segher Boessenkool > > Sent: 14 April 2021 16:19 > ... > > > Could the kernel use GCC builtin atomic functions instead ? > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/_005f_005fatomic-Builtins.html > > > > Certainly that should work fine for the simpler cases that the atomic > > operations are meant to provide. But esp. for not-so-simple cases the > > kernel may require some behaviour provided by the existing assembler > > implementation, and not by the atomic builtins. > > > > I'm not saying this cannot work, just that some serious testing will be > > needed. If it works it should be the best of all worlds, so then it is > > a really good idea yes :-) > > I suspect they just add an extra layer of abstraction that makes it > even more difficult to verify and could easily get broken by a compiler > update (etc). I would say it uses an existing facility, instead of creating a kernel- specific one. > The other issue is that the code needs to be correct with compiled > with (for example) -O0. > That could very easily break anything except the asm implementation > if additional memory accesses and/or increased code size cause grief. The compiler generates correct code. New versions of the compiler or old, -O0 or not, under any phase of the moon. Of course sometimes the compiler is broken, but there are pre-existing ways of dealing with that, and there is no reason at all to think this would break more often than random other code. Segher