On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 01:36:45PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 10:42:50AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Since there are really only a handful of instances in the kernel
> > that use the cmpxchg() or xchg() on u8/u16 variables, it would seem
> > best to just disallow those completely
>
> Not going to happen. xchg16 is optimal for qspinlock and if we replace
> that with a cmpxchg loop on x86 we're regressing.
>
> > Interestingly, the s390 version using __sync_val_compare_and_swap()
> > seems to produce nice output on all architectures that have atomic
> > instructions, with any supported compiler, to the point where I think
> > we could just use that to replace most of the inline-asm versions except
> > for arm64:
> >
> > #define cmpxchg(ptr, o, n) \
> > ({ \
> > __typeof__(*(ptr)) __o = (o); \
> > __typeof__(*(ptr)) __n = (n); \
> > (__typeof__(*(ptr))) __sync_val_compare_and_swap((ptr),__o,__n);\
> > })
>
> It generates the LL/SC loop, but doesn't do sensible optimizations when
> it's again used in a loop itself. That is, it generates a loop of a
> loop, just like what you'd expect, which is sub-optimal for LL/SC.
>
> > Not how gcc's acquire/release behavior of __sync_val_compare_and_swap()
> > relates to what the kernel wants here.
> >
> > The gcc documentation also recommends using the standard
> > __atomic_compare_exchange_n() builtin instead, which would allow
> > constructing release/acquire/relaxed versions as well, but I could not
> > get it to produce equally good output. (possibly I was using it wrong)
>
> I'm scared to death of the C11 crap, the compiler will 'optimize' them
> when it feels like it and use the C11 memory model rules for it, which
> are not compatible with the kernel rules.
>
> But the same thing applies, it won't do the right thing for composites.
See the mess it makes:
https://godbolt.org/z/r7d13d4Kf
That should've been something like:
__xadd:
mov r3, r0
dmb ish
.L1:
ldrex r0, [r3]
adds r1, r0
strex ip, r0, [r3]
cmp ip, #0
bne .L1
dmb ish
Which I'll argue has stronger guarantees than the double loop. I'm
pretty sure branches can release the lock on some archs (Alpha is known
to do this).
