[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] page-table walkers vs memory order
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 14:51 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> I do love the status quo, but an audit would be welcome. When
> it comes to patches, personally I tend to prefer ACCESS_ONCE() and
> smp_read_barrier_depends() and accompanying comments to be hidden away
> in the underlying macros or inlines where reasonable, rather than
> repeated all over; but I may have my priorities wrong on that.
Yeah, I was being lazy, and I totally forgot to actually look at the
alpha code.

How about we do a generic (cribbed from rcu_dereference):

#define page_table_deref(p) \
({ \
typeof(*p) *______p = (typeof(*p) __force *)ACCESS_ONCE(p);\
smp_read_barrier_depends(); \
((typeof(*p) __force __kernel *)(______p)); \

and use that all over to dereference page-tables. That way all this
lives in one place. Granted, I'll have to go edit all arch code, but I
seem to be doing that on a frequent basis anyway :/

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-07-26 23:21    [W:0.121 / U:1.352 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site