On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 08:23:22PM +0800, boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 05:51:46PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/asm-generic/rwonce.h b/include/asm-generic/rwonce.h
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..92cc2f223cb3
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/include/asm-generic/rwonce.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> > +/*
> > + * Prevent the compiler from merging or refetching reads or writes. The
> > + * compiler is also forbidden from reordering successive instances of
> > + * READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE, but only when the compiler is aware of some
> > + * particular ordering. One way to make the compiler aware of ordering is to
> > + * put the two invocations of READ_ONCE or WRITE_ONCE in different C
> > + * statements.
> > + *
> > + * These two macros will also work on aggregate data types like structs or
> > + * unions.
> > + *
> > + * Their two major use cases are: (1) Mediating communication between
> > + * process-level code and irq/NMI handlers, all running on the same CPU,
> > + * and (2) Ensuring that the compiler does not fold, spindle, or otherwise
> > + * mutilate accesses that either do not require ordering or that interact
> > + * with an explicit memory barrier or atomic instruction that provides the
> > + * required ordering.
> > + */
> > +#ifndef __ASM_GENERIC_RWONCE_H
> > +#define __ASM_GENERIC_RWONCE_H
> > +
> > +#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> > +
> > +#include <linux/compiler_types.h>
> > +#include <linux/kasan-checks.h>
> > +#include <linux/kcsan-checks.h>
> > +
> > +#include <asm/barrier.h>
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Use __READ_ONCE() instead of READ_ONCE() if you do not require any
> > + * atomicity or dependency ordering guarantees. Note that this may result
> > + * in tears!
> > + */
> > +#define __READ_ONCE(x) (*(const volatile __unqual_scalar_typeof(x) *)&(x))
> > +
> > +#define __READ_ONCE_SCALAR(x) \
> > +({ \
> > + __unqual_scalar_typeof(x) __x = __READ_ONCE(x); \
> > + smp_read_barrier_depends(); \
> > + (typeof(x))__x; \
> > +})
> > +
> > +#define READ_ONCE(x) \
> > +({ \
> > + compiletime_assert_rwonce_type(x); \
>
> Does it make sense if we also move the definition of this compile time
> assertion into rwonce.h too?
Yes, that looks straightforward enough. Thanks for the suggestion!
I'll also try to get this lot into -next this week.
Will
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
