Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 00/22] Resilient Queued Spin Lock

[Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi]

On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 at 02:00, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 at 12:13, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, we also noticed during development that try_cmpxchg_tail (in
> > patch 9) couldn't rely on 16-bit cmpxchg being available everywhere
>
> I think that's purely a "we have had no use for it" issue.
>
> A 16-bit cmpxchg can always be written using a larger size, and we did
> that for 8-bit ones for RCU.
>
> See commit d4e287d7caff ("rcu-tasks: Remove open-coded one-byte
> cmpxchg() emulation") which switched RCU over to use a "native" 8-bit
> cmpxchg, because Paul had added the capability to all architectures,
> sometimes using a bigger size and "emulating" it: a88d970c8bb5 ("lib:
> Add one-byte emulation function").
>
> In fact, I think that series added a couple of 16-bit cases too, but I
> actually went "if we have no users, don't bother".

I see, that makes sense. I don't think we have a pressing need for it,
so it should be fine as is.

I initially used it because comparing other bits wasn't necessary when
we only needed to reset the tail back to 0, but we would fall back to
32-bit cmpxchg in case of NR_CPUS > 16k anyway, since the tail is >
16-bits in that config.

>
>               Linus