[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1219316568.8651.107.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:02:48 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
Cc: jmerkey@...fmountaingroup.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Paul E McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] mdb: Merkey's Linux Kernel Debugger
2.6.27-rc4 released
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 12:57 +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-08-20 at 20:50 -0600, jmerkey@...fmountaingroup.com wrote:
> >
> >> volatiles left in the code due to the previously stated
> >> (and still present) severe breakage of the GNU compiler with SMP
> >> shared data. most of the barrier() functions are just plain broken
> >> and do not result in proper compiler behavior in this tree.
> >
> > Can you provide explicit detail?
> >
> > By using barrier() the compiler should clobber all its memory and
> > registers therefore forcing a write/reload of the variable.
>
> I hope Jeff didn't try mere barrier()s only. smp_wmb() and smp_rmb()
> are the more relevant barrier variants for mdb, from what I remember
> when I last looked at it.
Sure, but volatile isn't a replacement for memory barriers.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists