[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:21:35 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, will.deacon@....com,
daniel@...earbox.net, arnd@...db.de, yang.shi@...aro.org,
linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
zlim.lnx@...il.com, ast@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, xi.wang@...il.com, catalin.marinas@....com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, yhs@...mgrid.com,
bblanco@...mgrid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: bpf: add BPF XADD instruction
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:55:59AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> Therefore things like memory barriers, full set of atomics are not applicable
> in bpf world.
There are still plenty of wait-free constructs one can make using them.
Say a barrier/rendezvous construct for knowing when an event has
happened on all CPUs.
But if you really do not want any of that, I suppose that is a valid
choice.
Is even privileged (e)BPF not allowed things like this? I was thinking
the strict no loops stuff was for unpriv (e)BPF only.
--
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