[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140207165028.GO4250@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 08:50:28 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Torvald Riegel <triegel@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@....com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"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>,
"gcc@....gnu.org" <gcc@....gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:44:05AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 08:20:51PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Hopefully some discussion of out-of-thin-air values as well.
>
> Yes, absolutely shoot store speculation in the head already. Then drive
> a wooden stake through its hart.
>
> C11/C++11 should not be allowed to claim itself a memory model until that
> is sorted.
There actually is a proposal being put forward, but it might not make ARM
and Power people happy because it involves adding a compare, a branch,
and an ISB/isync after every relaxed load... Me, I agree with you,
much preferring the no-store-speculation approach.
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