Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 6 Feb 2014 18:52:01 +0100 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/5] arch: Sanitize atomic_t bitwise ops |
| |
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 08:53:02AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:48 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > > Many archs have atomic_{set,clear}_mask() but not all. Remove these > > and provide a comprehensive set of bitops: > > > > atomic{,64}_{and,or,xor}{,_return}() > > Who uses these, and why?
s390 is stuffed with atomic_{set,clear}_mask usage, no clue whatfor.
There's 2 atomic_set_mask() users in drm/i915, again haven't looked if it makes sense.
Various archs use atomic_set_mask() for their tlb flush mask, which arguably should be done using the bitmap functions we have.
> The "_return()" versions of atomic ops are noticeably slower and more > complex on common architectures (ie x86), and apparently there is no > use of them since they didn't exist. > > So why add them? Just to encourage people to do bad things?
Fair enough, they're mostly an accident of how I implemented the macro generation magic. I suppose I can change that and avoid generating the _return thingies.
I don't particularly care for this patch too much; but I do dislike the atomic_{set,clear}_mask() things -- mostly because they don't really fit the normal atomic_t functions and because some archs have then and others do no.
And atomic_{set,clear}_mask() can be used for setting/clearing multiple bits as opposed to {set,clear}_bit, which only does a single bit.
|  |