[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzxSa0qM5iC-aM4mh=qni0r87_gHR3tN6Xzo0miYSrcgw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 12:30:30 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Andreas Krebbel <Andreas.Krebbel@...ibm.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: compiler bug gcc4.6/4.7 with ACCESS_ONCE and workarounds
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Christian Borntraeger
<borntraeger@...ibm.com> wrote:
>
> So It looks like we could make a change to ACCESS_ONCE. Would something like
>
> CONFIG_ARCH_SCALAR_ACCESS_ONCE be a good start?
No, if it's just a handful of places to be fixed, let's not add config
options for broken cases.
> This would boil down to
> Patch1: Provide stricter ACCESS_ONCE if CONFIG_ARCH_SCALAR_ACCESS_ONCE is set + docu update + comments
> Patch2: Change mm/* to barriers
> Patch3: Change x86 locks
> Patch4: Change x86 gup
> Patch4: Enable CONFIG_ARCH_SCALAR_ACCESS_ONCE for s390x and x86
Just do patches 2-4 first, and then patch 1 unconditionally.
Obviously you'd need to spread the word on linux-arch to see how bad
it is for other cases, but if other architectures are at all like x86
and s390, and just require a few trivial patches, let's not make this
some config option.
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