[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150617165802.GF19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:58:02 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: umgwanakikbuti@...il.com, mingo@...e.hu, ktkhai@...allels.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, tglx@...utronix.de, juri.lelli@...il.com,
pang.xunlei@...aro.org, oleg@...hat.com,
wanpeng.li@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/18] seqcount: Introduce raw_write_seqcount_barrier()
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 08:42:45AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > I would very much prefer a compiler switch that instructs the compiler
> > to not do bloody stupid things like this instead of marking every other
> > load/store in the kernel with volatile.
>
> I would of course be good with such a compiler switch, though my earlier
> attempts to negotiate one were unsuccessful. But I don't believe that we
> discussed a switch to specifically prohibit only use of to-be-stored-into
> variables as temporary scratch space. The trick is finding restrictions
> that are useful, but that don't imply -O0.
I would request on that disables all the 'stores from thin air'
'optimizations'. IOW assume everything is shared memory and concurrent
unless you can prove its not so. For example a local stack variable that
does not escape scope.
--
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