Re: [PATCH 0/7] preempt_count rework -v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Here's one that builds and boots on kvm until wanting to mount root.
>
> I'm not entirely sure on the "ir" vs "er" thing and atomic64_t and
> local_t are inconsistent wrt that so I'm too.

"i" is "any constant", while "e" is "32-bit signed constant".

And I think all of the 64-bit ones should probably be "e", because
afaik there is no way to add a 64-bit constant directly to memory (you
have to load it into a register first).

Of course, in reality, the constant is always just 1 or -1 or
something like that, so nobody will ever notice the incorrect case...

And it doesn't matter for the 32-bit cases, obviously, but we could
just make them all be "e" for simplicity.

That said, looking at your patch, I get the *very* strong feeling that
we could make a macro that does all the repetitions for us, and then
have a

  GENERATE_RMW(atomic_sub_and_test, LOCK_PREFIX "subl", "e", "")
  GENERATE_RMW(atomic_dec_and_test, LOCK_PREFIX "decl", "e", "")
  ..
  GENERATE_RMW(atomic_add_negative, LOCK_PREFIX "addl", "s", "")

  GENERATE_RMW(local_sub_and_test, "subl", "e", __percpu_prefix)
  ...

etc.

I'm sure the macro would be nasty as hell (and I bet it needs a few
more arguments), but then we'd avoid the repetition..

                Linus
--
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/