Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: bpf: add BPF XADD instruction
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Wed Nov 11 2015 - 12:57:50 EST
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:35:48PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:27:00 -0800
> > BPF_XADD == atomic_add() in kernel. period.
> > we are not going to deprecate it or introduce something else.
> Agreed, it makes no sense to try and tie C99 or whatever atomic
> semantics to something that is already clearly defined to have
> exactly kernel atomic_add() semantics.
Dave, this really doesn't make any sense to me. __sync primitives have
well defined semantics and (e)BPF is violating this.
Furthermore, the fetch_and_add (or XADD) name has well defined
semantics, which (e)BPF also violates.
Atomicy is hard enough as it is, backends giving random interpretations
to them isn't helping anybody.
It also baffles me that Alexei is seemingly unwilling to change/rev the
(e)BPF instructions, which would be invisible to the regular user, he
does want to change the language itself, which will impact all
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/