Re: [RFC] page-table walkers vs memory order

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 14:51 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> I do love the status quo, but an audit would be welcome.  When
> it comes to patches, personally I tend to prefer ACCESS_ONCE() and
> smp_read_barrier_depends() and accompanying comments to be hidden away
> in the underlying macros or inlines where reasonable, rather than
> repeated all over; but I may have my priorities wrong on that.
> 
> 
Yeah, I was being lazy, and I totally forgot to actually look at the
alpha code.

How about we do a generic (cribbed from rcu_dereference):

#define page_table_deref(p)					\
({								\
	typeof(*p) *______p = (typeof(*p) __force *)ACCESS_ONCE(p);\
	smp_read_barrier_depends();				\
	((typeof(*p) __force __kernel *)(______p));		\
})

and use that all over to dereference page-tables. That way all this
lives in one place. Granted, I'll have to go edit all arch code, but I
seem to be doing that on a frequent basis anyway :/


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]