From: Peter Zijlstra
> Sent: 05 November 2022 15:14
>
> On Sat, Nov 05, 2022 at 02:29:47PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 10:15:08AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 9:01 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So cmpxchg_double() does a cmpxchg on a double long value and is
> > > > currently supported by: i386, x86_64, arm64 and s390.
> > > >
> > > > On all those, except i386, two longs are u128.
> > > >
> > > > So how about we introduce u128 and cmpxchg128 -- then it directly
> > > > mirrors the u64 and cmpxchg64 usage we already have. It then also
> > > > naturally imposses the alignment thing.
> > >
> > > Ack, except that we might have some "u128" users that do *not*
> > > necessarily want any alignment thing.
> > >
> > > But maybe we could at least start with an u128 type that is marked as
> > > being fully aligned, and if some other user comes in down the line
> > > that wants relaxed alignment we can call it "u128_unaligned" or
> > > something.
> >
> > Hm, sounds maybe not so nice for another use case: arithmetic code that
> > makes use of u128 for efficient computations, but otherwise has
> > no particular alignment requirements. For example, `typedef __uint128_t
> > u128;` in:
>
> Natural alignment is... natural. Making it unaligned is quite mad. That
> whole u64 is not naturally aligned on i386 thing Linus referred to is a
> sodding pain in the backside.
>
> If the code has no alignment requirements, natural alignment is as good
> as any. And if it does have requirements, you can use u128_unaligned.
>
> Also:
>
> $ ./align
> 16, 16
>
> ---
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> int main(int argx, char **argv)
> {
> __int128 a;
>
> printf("%d, %d\n", sizeof(a), __alignof(a));
> return 0;
> }
Well, __alignof() doesn't return the required value.
(cf 'long long' on 32bit x86).
But the alignment of __int128 is 16 :-)
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
