On 22.02.2024 10:05, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> The usage of a cmpxchg loop in get_next_handle() is unnecessary, as the same
> can be achieved with an atomic increment, which is both simpler to read, and
> avoid any need for a loop.
>
> The cmpxchg usage is likely a remnant of 32bit support, which didn't have an
> instruction to do an atomic 64bit add, and instead a cmpxchg had to be used.
>
> Suggested-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
> Signed-of-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
albeit ...
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_sharing.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_sharing.c
> @@ -179,13 +179,7 @@ static void mem_sharing_page_unlock(struct page_info *pg)
>
> static shr_handle_t get_next_handle(void)
> {
> - /* Get the next handle get_page style */
> - uint64_t x, y = next_handle;
> - do {
> - x = y;
> - }
> - while ( (y = cmpxchg(&next_handle, x, x + 1)) != x );
> - return x + 1;
> + return arch_fetch_and_add(&next_handle, 1) + 1;
> }
... the adding of 1 here is a little odd when taken together with
next_handle's initializer. Tamas, you've not written that code, but do
you have any thoughts towards the possible removal of either the
initializer or the adding here? Plus that variable of course could
very well do with moving into this function.
Jan
