Committer: Paul E. McKenney
CommitterDate: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 15:09:59 -07:00
locking/atomics: Use read-write instrumentation for atomic RMWs
Use instrument_atomic_read_write() for atomic RMW ops.
Cc: Will Deacon
Cc: Boqun Feng
Cc: Arnd Bergmann
Cc:
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
Signed-off
From: Marco Elver
Use instrument_atomic_read_write() for atomic RMW ops.
Cc: Will Deacon
Cc: Boqun Feng
Cc: Arnd Bergmann
Cc:
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
Signed-off-by: Marco Elver
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
---
include/asm-generic/atomic-instrumented.h | 330
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 01:59:08PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 13:31, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 12:28:26PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Sorry to come to this rather late -- this comment equally applies to v2
> > > so I'm replying
On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 13:31, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 12:28:26PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sorry to come to this rather late -- this comment equally applies to v2
> > so I'm replying here to have context.
>
> ... and now I see that was already applied, so
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 12:28:26PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry to come to this rather late -- this comment equally applies to v2
> so I'm replying here to have context.
... and now I see that was already applied, so please ignore this!
Mark.
Hi,
Sorry to come to this rather late -- this comment equally applies to v2
so I'm replying here to have context.
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:11:18PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 16:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 12:30:16PM +0200, Marco Elver
Use instrument_atomic_read_write() for atomic RMW ops.
Signed-off-by: Marco Elver
---
v2:
* Update inline comment.
---
include/asm-generic/atomic-instrumented.h | 330 +++---
scripts/atomic/gen-atomic-instrumented.sh | 21 +-
2 files changed, 180 insertions(+), 171 deletions(-)
On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 16:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 12:30:16PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/scripts/atomic/gen-atomic-instrumented.sh
> > b/scripts/atomic/gen-atomic-instrumented.sh
> > index 6afadf73da17..5cdcce703660 100755
> > ---
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 12:30:16PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> diff --git a/scripts/atomic/gen-atomic-instrumented.sh
> b/scripts/atomic/gen-atomic-instrumented.sh
> index 6afadf73da17..5cdcce703660 100755
> --- a/scripts/atomic/gen-atomic-instrumented.sh
> +++
Use instrument_atomic_read_write() for atomic RMW ops.
Signed-off-by: Marco Elver
---
include/asm-generic/atomic-instrumented.h | 330 +++---
scripts/atomic/gen-atomic-instrumented.sh | 20 +-
2 files changed, 179 insertions(+), 171 deletions(-)
diff --git
> This seems out of context.
> If the file was open(2)ed with O_APPEND, the file offset is first
> set to the end of the file before writing. The adjustment of the
> file offset and the write operation are performed as an atomic
> step.
> Sounds different, doesn't it?
This seems out of context.
If the file was open(2)ed with O_APPEND, the file offset is first
set to the end of the file before writing. The adjustment of the
file offset and the write operation are performed as an atomic
step.
Sounds different, doesn't it?
Yes, it
Hello,
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:36:15PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> The Linux manual page for write(2) says:
>
> The adjustment of the file offset and the write operation are
> performed as an atomic step.
This seems out of context.
Over here write(2) reads:
If
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Philippe Troin wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 10:13 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:36:15PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>> > The following fragment of code
>> >
>> > int fd;
>> > fd = open("exemple", O_CREAT | O_WRONLY |
> You don't check return code here, does write succeed at all?
Yes, both writes return 6.
> Does it ever produce e.g. OuOuilleille
No.
> (as this is what atomicity is about here)?
I was referring to the claim that under Linux writing and adjusting the
file offset are performed as an atomic
On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 10:13 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:36:15PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The Linux manual page for write(2) says:
> >
> > The adjustment of the file offset and the write operation are
> > performed as an atomic step.
>
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:36:15PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The Linux manual page for write(2) says:
>
> The adjustment of the file offset and the write operation are
> performed as an atomic step.
That's wrong. The file offset update is not synchronised at all with
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The Linux manual page for write(2) says:
>
> The adjustment of the file offset and the write operation are
> performed as an atomic step.
>
> This is apparently an extension to POSIX, which says
>
> This volume of
Hi,
The Linux manual page for write(2) says:
The adjustment of the file offset and the write operation are
performed as an atomic step.
This is apparently an extension to POSIX, which says
This volume of IEEE Std 1003.1-2001 does not specify behavior of
concurrent writes to a
Hi,
The Linux manual page for write(2) says:
The adjustment of the file offset and the write operation are
performed as an atomic step.
This is apparently an extension to POSIX, which says
This volume of IEEE Std 1003.1-2001 does not specify behavior of
concurrent writes to a
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote:
Hi,
The Linux manual page for write(2) says:
The adjustment of the file offset and the write operation are
performed as an atomic step.
This is apparently an extension to POSIX, which says
This
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:36:15PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
Hi,
The Linux manual page for write(2) says:
The adjustment of the file offset and the write operation are
performed as an atomic step.
That's wrong. The file offset update is not synchronised at all with
the
On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 10:13 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:36:15PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
Hi,
The Linux manual page for write(2) says:
The adjustment of the file offset and the write operation are
performed as an atomic step.
That's wrong.
You don't check return code here, does write succeed at all?
Yes, both writes return 6.
Does it ever produce e.g. OuOuilleille
No.
(as this is what atomicity is about here)?
I was referring to the claim that under Linux writing and adjusting the
file offset are performed as an atomic step,
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Philippe Troin p...@fifi.org wrote:
On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 10:13 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:36:15PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
The following fragment of code
int fd;
fd = open(exemple, O_CREAT | O_WRONLY | O_TRUNC,
Hello,
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:36:15PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
The Linux manual page for write(2) says:
The adjustment of the file offset and the write operation are
performed as an atomic step.
This seems out of context.
Over here write(2) reads:
If the
26 matches
Mail list logo
