[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080821114745.GD21089@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 04:47:45 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
jmerkey@...fmountaingroup.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] mdb: Merkey's Linux Kernel Debugger 2.6.27-rc4
released
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 01:02:48PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.
Let's face it, the C standard does not support concurrency, so we are
all in a state of sin in any case, forced to rely on combinations of
gcc-specific non-standard language extensions and assembly language.
Could be worse!!!
Thanx, Paul
--
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