[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52F3DA85.1060209@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 18:55:01 +0000
From: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramrad01@....com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
"paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"gcc@....gnu.org" <gcc@....gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework
On 02/06/14 18:25, David Howells wrote:
>
> Is it worth considering a move towards using C11 atomics and barriers and
> compiler intrinsics inside the kernel? The compiler _ought_ to be able to do
> these.
It sounds interesting to me, if we can make it work properly and
reliably. + gcc@....gnu.org for others in the GCC community to chip in.
>
> One thing I'm not sure of, though, is how well gcc's atomics will cope with
> interrupt handlers touching atomics on CPUs without suitable atomic
> instructions - that said, userspace does have to deal with signals getting
> underfoot. but then userspace can't normally disable interrupts.
>
> David
>
Ramana
--
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