Re: [RFC v2 4/7] powerpc: atomic: Implement xchg_* and atomic{,64}_xchg_* variants

2015-10-12 Thread Will Deacon
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 09:17:50AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 11:03:01AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 07:13:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:09:09AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015

Re: [RFC v2 4/7] powerpc: atomic: Implement xchg_* and atomic{,64}_xchg_* variants

2015-10-12 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 09:17:50AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 11:03:01AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 07:13:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:09:09AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Thu,

Re: [RFC v2 4/7] powerpc: atomic: Implement xchg_* and atomic{,64}_xchg_* variants

2015-10-11 Thread Boqun Feng
Hi Paul, On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 11:03:01AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 07:13:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:09:09AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:24:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > I

Re: [RFC v2 4/7] powerpc: atomic: Implement xchg_* and atomic{,64}_xchg_* variants

2015-10-05 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 03:44:07PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 07:03:01PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 07:13:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:09:09AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015

Re: [RFC v2 4/7] powerpc: atomic: Implement xchg_* and atomic{,64}_xchg_* variants

2015-10-05 Thread Will Deacon
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 07:03:01PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 07:13:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:09:09AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:24:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > I must say

Re: [RFC v2 4/7] powerpc: atomic: Implement xchg_* and atomic{,64}_xchg_* variants

2015-10-01 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:49:32PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > Implement xchg_relaxed and define atomic{,64}_xchg_* as xchg_relaxed, > based on these _relaxed variants, release/acquire variants can be built. > > Note that xchg_relaxed and atomic_{,64}_xchg_relaxed are not compiler > barriers.

Re: [RFC v2 4/7] powerpc: atomic: Implement xchg_* and atomic{,64}_xchg_* variants

2015-10-01 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:24:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:49:32PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > Implement xchg_relaxed and define atomic{,64}_xchg_* as xchg_relaxed, > > based on these _relaxed variants, release/acquire variants can be built. > > > > Note that

Re: [RFC v2 4/7] powerpc: atomic: Implement xchg_* and atomic{,64}_xchg_* variants

2015-10-01 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:09:09AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:24:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > I must say I'm somewhat surprised by this level of relaxation, I had > > expected to only loose SMP barriers, not the program order ones. > > > > Is there a

Re: [RFC v2 4/7] powerpc: atomic: Implement xchg_* and atomic{,64}_xchg_* variants

2015-10-01 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 07:13:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:09:09AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:24:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > I must say I'm somewhat surprised by this level of relaxation, I had > > > expected to

Re: [RFC v2 4/7] powerpc: atomic: Implement xchg_* and atomic{,64}_xchg_* variants

2015-10-01 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 11:03:01AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 07:13:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:09:09AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:24:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > I must say

Re: [RFC v2 4/7] powerpc: atomic: Implement xchg_* and atomic{,64}_xchg_* variants

2015-10-01 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:23:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 11:03:01AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 07:13:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:09:09AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 01,

[RFC v2 4/7] powerpc: atomic: Implement xchg_* and atomic{, 64}_xchg_* variants

2015-09-16 Thread Boqun Feng
Implement xchg_relaxed and define atomic{,64}_xchg_* as xchg_relaxed, based on these _relaxed variants, release/acquire variants can be built. Note that xchg_relaxed and atomic_{,64}_xchg_relaxed are not compiler barriers. Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng ---