[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2270.69.2.248.210.1219330681.squirrel@webmail.wolfmountaingroup.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:58:01 -0600 (MDT)
From: jmerkey@...fmountaingroup.com
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"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
>
>> Still, I'd like Jeff to show his C, the resulting asm and the intent for
>> the volatile and barrier versions of his code (well, little snippets of
>> his code obviuosly).
>>
>> Either he doesn't understand barriers (nothing to be ashamed about), or
>> we might have more trouble lurking in the rest of the kernel.
>
> Sounds fair to me!
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
I have thoroughly reviewed Linux memory barriers and the efficacy of the
barriers as defined in Linux are not the issue here. the code segment
discussed sits and spins on a variable waiting for a specific state, and
its a spinlock which creates a hard barrier, so no amount of barrier usage
should nor does matter here. Even if a processor was late in flushing its
writes, sooner or later the spinning processor would see the change in the
shared memory address -- IF IT WERE ACTUALLY A SHARED REFERENCE. What I
am seeing is not an issue of races between processors on load/store
operations, but cases where gcc has chosen to optimize away global
references entirely.
Jeff
--
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