Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire()

[Waiman Long]

On 12/04/2015 05:05 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Waiman Long<waiman.long@xxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > Will the following work?
> Are we trying to win some obfuscated C contest here?
>
> Just make it do something like (skipping backslashes to make it easier
> to type and read)
>
>   #define smp_cond_load_acquire(ptr, cond_expr) ({
>       typeof(*ptr) VAL;
>       for (;;) {
>            VAL = READ_ONCE(*ptr);
>            if (cond_expr) break;
>            cpu_relax();
>       }
>       smp_rmb();
>       VAL;
>    })
>
> and then you'd have it be
>
>      val = smp_cond_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter,
>                 !(VAL&  _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK));
>
> which is at least halfway legible. Not some odd "fragments of
> expressions" interfaces unless absolutely required, please.

It is just some random thought that I have. I am not saying that it is 
the right way to go.

> Of course, I suspect we should not use READ_ONCE(), but some
> architecture-overridable version that just defaults to READ_ONCE().
> Same goes for that "smp_rmb()". Because maybe some architectures will
> just prefer an explicit acquire, and I suspect we do *not* want
> architectures having to recreate and override that crazy loop.
>
> How much does this all actually end up mattering, btw?
>
>                 Linus

I think what Will want to do is to provide an architecture specific 
replacement for the whole macro, not just part of it. So using READ_ONCE 
should be fine.

Cheers,
Longman
--
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/