Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] powerpc: atomic: Implement atomic{,64}_*_return_* variants

[Boqun Feng]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 02:21:32PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:14:04PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
[snip]
> > +/*
> > + * Since {add,sub}_return_relaxed and xchg_relaxed are implemented with
> > + * a "bne-" instruction at the end, so an isync is enough as a acquire barrier
> > + * on the platform without lwsync.
> > + */
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > +#define smp_acquire_barrier__after_atomic() \
> > +	__asm__ __volatile__(PPC_ACQUIRE_BARRIER : : : "memory")
> 
> I'm not keen on this barrier, as it sounds like it's part of the kernel
> memory model, as opposed to an implementation detail on PowerPC (and
> we've already got enough of that in the generic code ;).
> 

Indeed, but we still have smp_lwsync() ;-)

> Can you name it something different please (and maybe #undef it when
> you're done)?
> 

I've considered #undef it after used, but now I think open code this
into __atomic_op_acquire() of PPC is a better idea?


#define __atomic_op_acquire(op, args...)				\
({									\
	typeof(op##_relaxed(args)) __ret  = op##_relaxed(args);		\
	__asm__ __volatile__(PPC_ACQUIRE_BARRIER : : : "memory");	\
	__ret;								\
})

PPC_ACQUIRE_BARRIER will be empty if !SMP, so that will become a pure
compiler barrier and just what we need.

Regards,
Boqun

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature