[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [cpuops cmpxchg double V2 1/4] Generic support for this_cpu_cmpxchg_double
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:

> I'm again probably missing something, but what is "clumsy" about defining a
> structure like the following to ensure proper alignment of the target
> pointer (instead of adding a runtime test) ?
> struct cmpxchg_double {
> unsigned long low, high;
> #else
> unsigned long high, low;
> #endif
> } __attribute__((packed, aligned(2 * sizeof(unsigned long))));
> (note: packed here along with "aligned" does _not_ generate ugly bytewise
> read/write memory ops like "packed" alone. The use of "packed" is to let the
> compiler down-align the structure to the value requested, instead of uselessly
> aligning it on 32-byte if it chooses to.)
> The prototype could then look like:
> bool __this_cpu_generic_cmpxchg_double(pcp, oval_low, oval_high, nval_low, nval_high);
> With:
> struct cmpxchg_double *pcp

That does not conform to the parameter conventions in other this_cpu_ops.
The first parameter is a variable because the notion of a pointer is
problematic given that percpu operations use a segment prefix to relocate
pointers. You would be implicitly passing a 128 bit argument although the
compiler may not need to generate code for that.

> I think Christoph's point is that he wants to alias this with a pointer. Well,
> this can be done cleanly with:
> union {
> struct cmpxchg_double casdbl;
> struct {
> void *ptr;
> unsigned long cpuid_tid;
> } t;
> }

There is no need for aliases with the existing implementation.

How will the macro check the parameters now?

> Thoughts ?

Could you actually try to write a patch instead running through points
that we have discussed earlier?

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-01-21 18:09    [W:0.390 / U:1.384 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site