Re: [PATCH 3/3] bitops.h: set_mask_bits() to return old value

2019-01-14 Thread Will Deacon
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 04:26:27PM -0800, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> | > Also, set_mask_bits is used in fs quite a bit and we can possibly come up
> | > with a generic llsc based implementation (w/o the cmpxchg loop)
> |
> | May I also suggest changing the return value of set_mask_bits() to old.
> |
> | You can compute the new value given old, but you cannot compute the old
> | value given new, therefore old is the better return value. Also, no
> | current user seems to use the return value, so changing it is without
> | risk.
> 
> Link: 
> http://lkml.kernel.org/g/20150807110955.gh16...@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net
> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra 
> Cc: Miklos Szeredi 
> Cc: Ingo Molnar 
> Cc: Jani Nikula 
> Cc: Chris Wilson 
> Cc: Andrew Morton 
> Cc: Will Deacon 
> Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta 
> ---
>  include/linux/bitops.h | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/bitops.h b/include/linux/bitops.h
> index 705f7c442691..602af23b98c7 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bitops.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bitops.h
> @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ static __always_inline void __assign_bit(long nr, 
> volatile unsigned long *addr,
>   new__ = (old__ & ~mask__) | bits__; \
>   } while (cmpxchg(ptr, old__, new__) != old__);  \
>   \
> - new__;  \
> + old__;  \
>  })
>  #endif

Acked-by: Will Deacon 

May also explain why no in-tree users appear to use the return value!

Will

___
linux-snps-arc mailing list
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc


Re: [PATCH 3/3] bitops.h: set_mask_bits() to return old value

2019-01-11 Thread Vineet Gupta
On 1/11/19 1:24 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/bitops.h b/include/linux/bitops.h
> index 705f7c442691..2060d26a35f5 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bitops.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bitops.h
> @@ -241,10 +241,10 @@ static __always_inline void __assign_bit(long nr, 
> volatile unsigned long *addr,
>   const typeof(*(ptr)) mask__ = (mask), bits__ = (bits);  \
>   typeof(*(ptr)) old__, new__;\
>   \
> + old__ = READ_ONCE(*(ptr));  \
>   do {\
> - old__ = READ_ONCE(*(ptr));  \
>   new__ = (old__ & ~mask__) | bits__; \
> - } while (cmpxchg(ptr, old__, new__) != old__);  \
> + } while (!try_cmpxchg(ptr, &old__, new__)); \
>   \
>   new__;  \
>  })
> 
> 
> While there you probably want something like the above... 

As a separate change perhaps so that a revert (unlikely as it might be) could be
done with less pain.

> although,
> looking at it now, we seem to have 'forgotten' to add try_cmpxchg to the
> generic code :/

So it _has_ to be a separate change ;-)

But can we even provide a sane generic try_cmpxchg. The asm-generic cmpxchg 
relies
on local irq save etc so it is clearly only to prevent a new arch from failing 
to
compile. atomic*_cmpxchg() is different story since atomics have to be provided 
by
arch.

Anyhow what is more interesting is the try_cmpxchg API itself. So commit
a9ebf306f52c756 introduced/use of try_cmpxchg(), which indeed makes the looping
"nicer" to read and obvious code gen improvements.

So,
for (;;) {
new = val $op $imm;
old = cmpxchg(ptr, val, new);
if (old == val)
break;
val = old;
}

becomes

do {
} while (!try_cmpxchg(ptr, &val, val $op $imm));


But on pure LL/SC retry based arches, we still end up with generated code 
having 2
loops. We discussed something similar a while back: see [1]

First loop is inside inline asm to retry LL/SC and the outer one due to code
above. Explicit return of try_cmpxchg() means setting up a register with a 
boolean
status of cmpxchg (AFAIKR ARMv7 already does that but ARC e.g. uses a CPU flag
thus requires an additional insn or two). We could arguably remove the inline 
asm
loop and retry LL/SC from the outer loop, but it seems cleaner to keep the retry
where it belongs.

Also under the hood, try_cmpxchg() would end up re-reading it for the issue 
fixed
by commit 44fe84459faf1a.

Heck, it would all be simpler if we could express this w/o use of cmpxchg.

try_some_op(ptr, &val, val $op $imm);

P.S. the horrible API name is for indicative purposes only

This would remove the outer loop completely, also avoid any re-reads due to the
semantics of cmpxchg etc.

[1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg2029217.html

___
linux-snps-arc mailing list
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc


Re: [PATCH 3/3] bitops.h: set_mask_bits() to return old value

2019-01-11 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 04:26:27PM -0800, Vineet Gupta wrote:

> @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ static __always_inline void __assign_bit(long nr, 
> volatile unsigned long *addr,
>   new__ = (old__ & ~mask__) | bits__; \
>   } while (cmpxchg(ptr, old__, new__) != old__);  \

diff --git a/include/linux/bitops.h b/include/linux/bitops.h
index 705f7c442691..2060d26a35f5 100644
--- a/include/linux/bitops.h
+++ b/include/linux/bitops.h
@@ -241,10 +241,10 @@ static __always_inline void __assign_bit(long nr, 
volatile unsigned long *addr,
const typeof(*(ptr)) mask__ = (mask), bits__ = (bits);  \
typeof(*(ptr)) old__, new__;\
\
+   old__ = READ_ONCE(*(ptr));  \
do {\
-   old__ = READ_ONCE(*(ptr));  \
new__ = (old__ & ~mask__) | bits__; \
-   } while (cmpxchg(ptr, old__, new__) != old__);  \
+   } while (!try_cmpxchg(ptr, &old__, new__)); \
\
new__;  \
 })


While there you probably want something like the above... although,
looking at it now, we seem to have 'forgotten' to add try_cmpxchg to the
generic code :/

___
linux-snps-arc mailing list
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc


Re: [PATCH 3/3] bitops.h: set_mask_bits() to return old value

2019-01-10 Thread Anthony Yznaga



On 1/10/19 4:26 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> | > Also, set_mask_bits is used in fs quite a bit and we can possibly come up
> | > with a generic llsc based implementation (w/o the cmpxchg loop)
> |
> | May I also suggest changing the return value of set_mask_bits() to old.
> |
> | You can compute the new value given old, but you cannot compute the old
> | value given new, therefore old is the better return value. Also, no
> | current user seems to use the return value, so changing it is without
> | risk.
>
> Link: 
> http://lkml.kernel.org/g/20150807110955.gh16...@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net
> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra 
> Cc: Miklos Szeredi 
> Cc: Ingo Molnar 
> Cc: Jani Nikula 
> Cc: Chris Wilson 
> Cc: Andrew Morton 
> Cc: Will Deacon 
> Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta 
>

Reviewed-by: Anthony Yznaga 

___
linux-snps-arc mailing list
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc