Re: [PATCH v2 13/20] arm64: percpu: Add infrastructure for preemptible this_cpu_*() ops
"David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <[email protected]> Wed, 5 Aug 2026 08:45:22 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.kernel.stable,gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> Atop v7.2-rc4, with GCC 15.2.0 and defconfig, this is compiled as: > > | <outline_this_cpu_add_u64>: > | paciasp > | stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! > | mrs x2, sp_el0 > | mov x29, sp > | ldr w3, [x2, #8] > | add w3, w3, #0x1 > | str w3, [x2, #8] > | mrs x3, tpidr_el1 > | add x0, x0, x3 > | 1: ldxr x5, [x0] > | add x5, x5, x1 > | stxr w4, x5, [x0] > | cbnz w4, 1b > | ldr x0, [x2, #8] > | sub x0, x0, #0x1 > | str w0, [x2, #8] > | cbz x0, 2f > | ldr x0, [x2, #8] > | cbnz x0, 3f > | 2: bl preempt_schedule_notrace > | 3: ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 > | autiasp > | ret FWIW, in a recent discussion on some prototype hacking [1] we saw some overhead in micro-benchmarks that would really hammer on a path that would now do a preempt_disable()+preempt_enable(). Switching from preempt_disable() to preempt_enable_no_resched() made it turn to noise. Of course, that has other undesirable impacts, and I am not sure if we are in the territory of code layout changes affecting the numbers. Just mentioning it as some data point. -- Cheers, David