[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902121210120.3099@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:13:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>,
ltt-dev@...ts.casi.polymtl.ca, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bryan Wu <cooloney@...nel.org>,
uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org
Subject: Re: [ltt-dev] [RFC git tree] Userspace RCU (urcu) for Linux
(repost)
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> Actually the best way to do this would be:
>
> while (ACCESS_ONCE(sig_done) < 1)
> continue;
>
> If ACCESS_ONCE() needs to be made architecture-specific to make this
> really work on Blackfin, we should make that change.
I really wouldn't want to mix up compiler barriers and cache barriers this
way.
I think "cpu_relax()" is likely the right thing to piggy-back on for
broken cache-coherency.
> And, now that you mention it, I have heard rumors that other CPU
> families can violate cache coherence in some circumstances.
I personally suspect that the BF pseudo-SMP code is just broken, and that
it likely has tons of subtle bugs and races - because we _do_ depend on
cache coherency at least for accessing objects next to each other. I just
never personally felt like I had the energy to care deeply enough.
But I draw the line at making ACCESS_ONCE() imply anything but a compiler
optimization issue.
Linus
--
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