__llsc_futex_atomic_set() is implmented using
LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP() macro with "mov %w3, %w5".
But this instruction isn't required to implement fux_atomic_set()
so make a small optimisation by implementing __llsc_futex_atomic_set()
as separate function.
This will make usage of LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP() macro more simple.
Signed-off-by: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@arm.com>
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
index ab7003cb4724..22a6301a9f3d 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
#define LLSC_MAX_LOOPS 128 /* What's the largest number you can think of? */
-#define LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(op, insn) \
+#define LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(op, asm_op) \
static __always_inline int \
__llsc_futex_atomic_##op(int oparg, u32 __user *uaddr, int *oval) \
{ \
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ __llsc_futex_atomic_##op(int oparg, u32 __user *uaddr, int *oval) \
asm volatile("// __llsc_futex_atomic_" #op "\n" \
" prfm pstl1strm, %2\n" \
"1: ldxr %w1, %2\n" \
- insn "\n" \
+" " #asm_op " %w3, %w1, %w5\n" \
"2: stlxr %w0, %w3, %2\n" \
" cbz %w0, 3f\n" \
" sub %w4, %w4, %w0\n" \
@@ -46,11 +46,40 @@ __llsc_futex_atomic_##op(int oparg, u32 __user *uaddr, int *oval) \
return ret; \
}
-LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(add, "add %w3, %w1, %w5")
-LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(or, "orr %w3, %w1, %w5")
-LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(and, "and %w3, %w1, %w5")
-LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(eor, "eor %w3, %w1, %w5")
-LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(set, "mov %w3, %w5")
+LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(add, add)
+LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(or, orr)
+LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(and, and)
+LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(eor, eor)
+
+static __always_inline int
+__llsc_futex_atomic_set(int oparg, u32 __user *uaddr, int *oval)
+{
+ unsigned int loops = LLSC_MAX_LOOPS;
+ int ret, oldval;
+
+ uaccess_enable_privileged();
+ asm volatile("//__llsc_futex_xchg\n"
+" prfm pstl1strm, %2\n"
+"1: ldxr %w1, %2\n"
+"2: stlxr %w0, %w4, %2\n"
+" cbz %w3, 3f\n"
+" sub %w3, %w3, %w0\n"
+" cbnz %w3, 1b\n"
+" mov %w0, %w5\n"
+"3:\n"
+" dmb ish\n"
+ _ASM_EXTABLE_UACCESS_ERR(1b, 3b, %w0)
+ _ASM_EXTABLE_UACCESS_ERR(2b, 3b, %w0)
+ : "=&r" (ret), "=&r" (oldval), "+Q" (*uaddr), "+r" (loops)
+ : "r" (oparg), "Ir" (-EAGAIN)
+ : "memory");
+ uaccess_disable_privileged();
+
+ if (!ret)
+ *oval = oldval;
+
+ return ret;
+}
static __always_inline int
__llsc_futex_cmpxchg(u32 __user *uaddr, u32 oldval, u32 newval, u32 *oval)
--
LEVI:{C3F47F37-75D8-414A-A8BA-3980EC8A46D7}
On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 04:19:28PM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote: > __llsc_futex_atomic_set() is implmented using > LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP() macro with "mov %w3, %w5". > But this instruction isn't required to implement fux_atomic_set() > so make a small optimisation by implementing __llsc_futex_atomic_set() > as separate function. > > This will make usage of LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP() macro more simple. > > Signed-off-by: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@arm.com> > --- > arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h > index ab7003cb4724..22a6301a9f3d 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h > @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ > > #define LLSC_MAX_LOOPS 128 /* What's the largest number you can think of? */ > > -#define LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(op, insn) \ > +#define LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(op, asm_op) \ > static __always_inline int \ > __llsc_futex_atomic_##op(int oparg, u32 __user *uaddr, int *oval) \ > { \ > @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ __llsc_futex_atomic_##op(int oparg, u32 __user *uaddr, int *oval) \ > asm volatile("// __llsc_futex_atomic_" #op "\n" \ > " prfm pstl1strm, %2\n" \ > "1: ldxr %w1, %2\n" \ > - insn "\n" \ > +" " #asm_op " %w3, %w1, %w5\n" \ > "2: stlxr %w0, %w3, %2\n" \ > " cbz %w0, 3f\n" \ > " sub %w4, %w4, %w0\n" \ > @@ -46,11 +46,40 @@ __llsc_futex_atomic_##op(int oparg, u32 __user *uaddr, int *oval) \ > return ret; \ > } > > -LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(add, "add %w3, %w1, %w5") > -LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(or, "orr %w3, %w1, %w5") > -LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(and, "and %w3, %w1, %w5") > -LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(eor, "eor %w3, %w1, %w5") > -LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(set, "mov %w3, %w5") > +LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(add, add) > +LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(or, orr) > +LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(and, and) > +LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(eor, eor) > + > +static __always_inline int > +__llsc_futex_atomic_set(int oparg, u32 __user *uaddr, int *oval) > +{ > + unsigned int loops = LLSC_MAX_LOOPS; > + int ret, oldval; > + > + uaccess_enable_privileged(); > + asm volatile("//__llsc_futex_xchg\n" > +" prfm pstl1strm, %2\n" > +"1: ldxr %w1, %2\n" > +"2: stlxr %w0, %w4, %2\n" > +" cbz %w3, 3f\n" > +" sub %w3, %w3, %w0\n" > +" cbnz %w3, 1b\n" > +" mov %w0, %w5\n" > +"3:\n" > +" dmb ish\n" > + _ASM_EXTABLE_UACCESS_ERR(1b, 3b, %w0) > + _ASM_EXTABLE_UACCESS_ERR(2b, 3b, %w0) > + : "=&r" (ret), "=&r" (oldval), "+Q" (*uaddr), "+r" (loops) > + : "r" (oparg), "Ir" (-EAGAIN) > + : "memory"); > + uaccess_disable_privileged(); > + > + if (!ret) > + *oval = oldval; Hmm, I'm really not sure this is worthwhile. I doubt the "optimisation" actually does anything and adding a whole new block of asm just for the SET case isn't much of an improvement on the maintainability side, either. Will
Hi Will, [...] > > arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > > 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h > > index ab7003cb4724..22a6301a9f3d 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h > > @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ > > > > #define LLSC_MAX_LOOPS 128 /* What's the largest number you can think of? */ > > > > -#define LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(op, insn) \ > > +#define LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(op, asm_op) \ > > static __always_inline int \ > > __llsc_futex_atomic_##op(int oparg, u32 __user *uaddr, int *oval) \ > > { \ > > @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ __llsc_futex_atomic_##op(int oparg, u32 __user *uaddr, int *oval) \ > > asm volatile("// __llsc_futex_atomic_" #op "\n" \ > > " prfm pstl1strm, %2\n" \ > > "1: ldxr %w1, %2\n" \ > > - insn "\n" \ > > +" " #asm_op " %w3, %w1, %w5\n" \ > > "2: stlxr %w0, %w3, %2\n" \ > > " cbz %w0, 3f\n" \ > > " sub %w4, %w4, %w0\n" \ > > @@ -46,11 +46,40 @@ __llsc_futex_atomic_##op(int oparg, u32 __user *uaddr, int *oval) \ > > return ret; \ > > } > > > > -LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(add, "add %w3, %w1, %w5") > > -LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(or, "orr %w3, %w1, %w5") > > -LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(and, "and %w3, %w1, %w5") > > -LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(eor, "eor %w3, %w1, %w5") > > -LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(set, "mov %w3, %w5") > > +LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(add, add) > > +LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(or, orr) > > +LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(and, and) > > +LLSC_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(eor, eor) > > + > > +static __always_inline int > > +__llsc_futex_atomic_set(int oparg, u32 __user *uaddr, int *oval) > > +{ > > + unsigned int loops = LLSC_MAX_LOOPS; > > + int ret, oldval; > > + > > + uaccess_enable_privileged(); > > + asm volatile("//__llsc_futex_xchg\n" > > +" prfm pstl1strm, %2\n" > > +"1: ldxr %w1, %2\n" > > +"2: stlxr %w0, %w4, %2\n" > > +" cbz %w3, 3f\n" > > +" sub %w3, %w3, %w0\n" > > +" cbnz %w3, 1b\n" > > +" mov %w0, %w5\n" > > +"3:\n" > > +" dmb ish\n" > > + _ASM_EXTABLE_UACCESS_ERR(1b, 3b, %w0) > > + _ASM_EXTABLE_UACCESS_ERR(2b, 3b, %w0) > > + : "=&r" (ret), "=&r" (oldval), "+Q" (*uaddr), "+r" (loops) > > + : "r" (oparg), "Ir" (-EAGAIN) > > + : "memory"); > > + uaccess_disable_privileged(); > > + > > + if (!ret) > > + *oval = oldval; > > Hmm, I'm really not sure this is worthwhile. I doubt the "optimisation" > actually does anything and adding a whole new block of asm just for the > SET case isn't much of an improvement on the maintainability side, either. TBH, I had the same question, but I thought this code seems to modify freqenetly, I decide even a small optimisation -- reduce one instruction only. But I don't have strong opinion for this patch. If it's not good for maintainability perspective, This patch can be dropped. Thanks! -- Sincerely, Yeoreum Yun
On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 05:19:11PM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote: > > > +static __always_inline int > > > +__llsc_futex_atomic_set(int oparg, u32 __user *uaddr, int *oval) [...] > > Hmm, I'm really not sure this is worthwhile. I doubt the "optimisation" > > actually does anything and adding a whole new block of asm just for the > > SET case isn't much of an improvement on the maintainability side, either. > > TBH, I had the same question, but I thought this code seems to modify > freqenetly, I decide even a small optimisation -- reduce one instruction > only. > > But I don't have strong opinion for this patch. > If it's not good for maintainability perspective, > This patch can be dropped. I'd drop it for now unless you can show some performance benefits (unlikely). -- Catalin
On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 05:36:20PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 05:19:11PM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote: > > > > +static __always_inline int > > > > +__llsc_futex_atomic_set(int oparg, u32 __user *uaddr, int *oval) > [...] > > > Hmm, I'm really not sure this is worthwhile. I doubt the "optimisation" > > > actually does anything and adding a whole new block of asm just for the > > > SET case isn't much of an improvement on the maintainability side, either. > > > > TBH, I had the same question, but I thought this code seems to modify > > freqenetly, I decide even a small optimisation -- reduce one instruction > > only. > > > > But I don't have strong opinion for this patch. > > If it's not good for maintainability perspective, > > This patch can be dropped. > > I'd drop it for now unless you can show some performance benefits > (unlikely). Yes. not much of improvement. So I'll drop this patch. Thanks. -- Sincerely, Yeoreum Yun
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.