From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>
To: "Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>, "Marc Zyngier" <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: "Lukas Bulwahn" <lbulwahn@redhat.com>,
"Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
"Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
"Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>,
"Kees Cook" <kees@kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Lukas Bulwahn" <lukas.bulwahn@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Kconfig: deprecate redundant ARM64_USE_LSE_ATOMICS
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2026 23:07:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7b7ac65c-773e-48fe-a335-c49b6ef9a0e8@app.fastmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aV6CpBCvr37mcv7W@willie-the-truck>
On Wed, Jan 7, 2026, at 16:58, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 01:54:39PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Jan 2026 20:50:41 +0000, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
>> Subject: [PATCH] arm64: Unconditionally enable LSE support
>>
>> LSE atomics have been in the architecture since ARMv8.1 (released in
>> 2014), and are hopefully supported by all modern toolchains.
>>
>> Drop the optional nature of LSE support in the kernel, and always
>> compile the support in, as this really is very little code. LL/SC
>> still is the default, and the switch to LSE is done dynamically.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 16 ----------------
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h | 23 -----------------------
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/lse.h | 9 ---------
>> arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 2 --
>> arch/arm64/kvm/at.c | 7 -------
>> arch/arm64/lib/insn.c | 2 --
>> arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 7 -------
>> 7 files changed, 66 deletions(-)
>
> I think we should go ahead with this.
>
> Initially, I thought we'd need some surgery to cpufeature.c so that
> cpus_have_final_cap() could take the _likely_ path for LSE but it looks
> like that's only relevant for KVM's AT handling and the common atomic_t
> APIs use alternative_has_cap_likely() already.
I'm not entirely convinced by the direction. Removing compile-time
options and complexity from #ifdef blocks is clearly an advantage,
but I'm a bit worried about at least the ARM64_USE_LSE_ATOMICS
option still being valuable.
The boot-time patching for all atomics adds complexity as well, and
being able to configure it out can be helpful in a number of
scenarios:
- I've seen several scenarios where code size is extremely important,
and being able to compile out any runtime-detected features
saves some space. In a defconfig kernel, this is about 1.1% of .text.
Being able to select just the LSE version without the patching
may be even more valuable these days, but almost
all embedded systems I see are still ARMv8.0 (Cortex-A53 and
Cortex-A35) without LSE.
- We have an experimental patch set for CONFIG_XIP_KERNEL on arm64,
which inherently requires not patching at all, and requires
the opposite patches for other features and errata workarounds.
- The amount of nested macros and inline functions for the arm64
atomics is large enough to slow down compilation, #including
linux/spinlock.h shouldn't really result in >1MB of preprocessed
source code. (this is a much harder problem to solve)
Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-07 22:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-23 11:07 Lukas Bulwahn
2026-01-05 20:50 ` Will Deacon
2026-01-06 13:54 ` Marc Zyngier
2026-01-07 15:58 ` Will Deacon
2026-01-07 18:10 ` Marc Zyngier
2026-01-07 22:07 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2026-01-20 12:14 ` Will Deacon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7b7ac65c-773e-48fe-a335-c49b6ef9a0e8@app.fastmail.com \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lbulwahn@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukas.bulwahn@redhat.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=vegard.nossum@oracle.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®