[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160519090013.GU3193@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 11:00:13 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@....com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@....com>, kcc@...gle.com,
dvyukov@...gle.com, dhowells@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/rwsem: Add reader-owned state to the owner
field
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:26:06AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 01:05:55PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Alternatively, could we try and talk to our GCC friends to make sure GCC
> > doesn't tear loads/stores irrespective of what the C language spec
> > allows?
>
> Interestingly enough, they used to make that guarantee, but removed it
> when C11 showed up.
Did someone tell them this was a regression and have them fix it? They
can't just change things like this.
> Me, I would feel better explicitly telling the compiler what I needed.
> It is all too easy for bugs to slip in otherwise, especially when the
> gcc guys are adding exciting new optimizations.
GCC guys (as opposed to the language guys) should be far more amenable
to our needs, and I don't think they want to break the kernel any more
than we do.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists