[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170801221818.GN3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:18:18 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3]: documentation,atomic: Add new documents
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 06:42:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 09:14:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > So if ARM really needs the litmus test with smp_rmb() to be allowed,
> > we need to adjust the Linux-kernel memory model appropriately. Which
> > means that one of us needs to reach out to the usual suspects. Would
> > you like to do that, or would you like me to?
>
> I'm really sad ARM8.1 LSE breaks this stuff.. It is rather counter
> intuitive (then again, we _are_ talking barriers).
No argument.
Then again, when we said that the Linux kernel memory model would
have a non-trivial rate of change, we weren't joking.
Will, is this the official description?
http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.ddi0557a.b/index.html
If so, is B6.1 what we should be looking at?
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists