Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] this_cpu_cmpxchg: ARM64: switch this_cpu_cmpxchg to locked, add _local function

[David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 02.03.23 11:42, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 09.02.23 16:01, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > Goal is to have vmstat_shepherd to transfer from
> > per-CPU counters to global counters remotely. For this,
> > an atomic this_cpu_cmpxchg is necessary.
> >
> > Following the kernel convention for cmpxchg/cmpxchg_local,
> > change ARM's this_cpu_cmpxchg_ helpers to be atomic,
> > and add this_cpu_cmpxchg_local_ helpers which are not atomic.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Index: linux-vmstat-remote/arch/arm64/include/asm/percpu.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-vmstat-remote.orig/arch/arm64/include/asm/percpu.h
> > +++ linux-vmstat-remote/arch/arm64/include/asm/percpu.h
> > @@ -232,13 +232,23 @@ PERCPU_RET_OP(add, add, ldadd)
> >    	_pcp_protect_return(xchg_relaxed, pcp, val)
> >    
> >    #define this_cpu_cmpxchg_1(pcp, o, n)	\
> > -	_pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg_relaxed, pcp, o, n)
> > +	_pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg, pcp, o, n)
> >    #define this_cpu_cmpxchg_2(pcp, o, n)	\
> > -	_pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg_relaxed, pcp, o, n)
> > +	_pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg, pcp, o, n)
> >    #define this_cpu_cmpxchg_4(pcp, o, n)	\
> > -	_pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg_relaxed, pcp, o, n)
> > +	_pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg, pcp, o, n)
> >    #define this_cpu_cmpxchg_8(pcp, o, n)	\
> > +	_pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg, pcp, o, n)
> > +
> > +#define this_cpu_cmpxchg_local_1(pcp, o, n)	\
> >    	_pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg_relaxed, pcp, o, n)
> > +#define this_cpu_cmpxchg_local_2(pcp, o, n)	\
> > +	_pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg_relaxed, pcp, o, n)
> > +#define this_cpu_cmpxchg_local_4(pcp, o, n)	\
> > +	_pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg_relaxed, pcp, o, n)
> > +#define this_cpu_cmpxchg_local_8(pcp, o, n)	\
> > +	_pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg_relaxed, pcp, o, n)
> > +
>
> Call me confused (not necessarily your fault :) ).
>
> We have cmpxchg_local, cmpxchg_relaxed and cmpxchg.
> this_cpu_cmpxchg_local_* now calls ... *drumroll* ... cmpxchg_relaxed.
>
> IIUC, cmpxchg_local is only guaranteed to be atomic WRO the current CPU
> (especially, protection against interrupts when the operation is
> implemented using multiple instructions). We do have a generic
> implementation that disables/enables interrupts.
>
> IIUC, cmpxchg_relaxed an atomic update without any memory ordering
> guarantees (in contrast to cmpxchg, cmpxchg_acquire, cmpxchg_acquire).
> We default to arch_cmpxchg if we don't have arch_cmpxchg_relaxed.
> arch_cmpxchg defaults to arch_cmpxchg_local, if not supported.
>
>
> Naturally I wonder:
>
> (a) Should these new variants be rather called
>       this_cpu_cmpxchg_relaxed_* ?
>
> (b) Should these new variants rather call the "_local" variant?
>
>
> Shedding some light on this would be great.

Nevermind, looking at the other patches I realized that this is 
arch-specific. Other archs that have _local variants call the _local 
variants. So I assume we really want the name this_cpu_cmpxchg_local_*, 
and using _relaxed here is just the aarch64 way of implementing _local 
via _relaxed.

Confusing :)

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb