[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <540DFFB2.9040101@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 12:12:50 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
CC: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
Mikael Pettersson <mikpelinux@...il.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Miroslav Franc <mfranc@...hat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: bit fields && data tearing
On 09/08/2014 12:09 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> Um, I think you need to re-read the thread; that's not what I said at
> all. It's even written lower down: "PA can't do atomic bit sets (no
> atomic RMW except the ldcw operation) it can do atomic writes to
> fundamental sizes (byte, short, int, long) provided gcc emits the
> correct primitive". The original question was whether atomicity
> required native bus width access, which we currently assume, so there's
> no extant problem.
>
The issue at hand was whether or not partially overlapped (but natually
aligned) writes can pass each other. *This* is the aggressive
relaxation to which I am referring.
I would guess that that is a very unusual constraint.
-hpa
--
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