Re: [RFC] page-table walkers vs memory order

[Peter Zijlstra]

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 :/


--
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/