Re: [cpuops cmpxchg double V2 1/4] Gen eric support for this_cpu_cmpxchg_double

From: H. Peter Anvin
Date: Fri Jan 21 2011 - 13:40:13 EST


What is the problem with passing 128-bit structures by value? I'm quite sure *that* is okay.

"Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>* Christoph Lameter (cl@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>
>> > We could do cmpxchg with a structure... the problem with a lon int
>type is that Cristoph ran into bugs with __int128 on 64 bits.
>>
>> We also would need to be pass the structure by value (well its really
>a
>> variable but its like passing by value) in order to be similar to the
>> other this_cpu_ops
>>
>> You'd want either
>>
>> DEFINE_PERCPU(struct mycustomdoublestruct, percpu_dd)
>>
>> this_cpu_cmpxchg_double(percpu_dd, oldword1, oldword2, newword1,
>newword2)
>>
>> with the problem of type checking
>
>What is the problem with type checking here ?
>
>We could use a gcc builtin like the following to check if the alignment
>of
>"percpu_dd" meets the double-cas requirements:
>
>#define testmacro(a, b) \
> __builtin_choose_expr(__alignof__(a) >= 2 * sizeof(unsigned long), \
> ((a).low) = (b), \ /* success */
> ((a).low) = (void) 0) /* compile-error */
>
>> or
>>
>> this_cpu_cmpxchg_double(percpu_dd, old_dd, new_dd)
>>
>> with the problem of 128 bit constants/structs passed by value.
>
>Yeah, I guess trying to deal with 128-bit value might be a bit tricky.
>But
>having something sane and with compile-time-checked alignment for the
>percpu_dd
>type is not to be looked over.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Mathieu
>
>--
>Mathieu Desnoyers
>Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
>EfficiOS Inc.
>http://www.efficios.com

--
Sent from my mobile phone. Please pardon any lack of formatting.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/