[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170921124531.6ufvoxi3vz2rshqs@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:45:31 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: j.alglave@....ac.uk, luc.maranget@...ia.fr, parri.andrea@...il.com,
stern@...land.harvard.edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
will.deacon@....com, boqun.feng@...il.com, npiggin@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Memory-ordering recipes
On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 04:05:09PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> So what litmus tests are needed? Here is my initial set:
>
> 1. Release-acquire chains, AKA ISA2, Z6.2, LB, and 3.LB
>
> Lots of variety here, can in some cases substitute:
>
> a. READ_ONCE() for smp_load_acquire()
> b. WRITE_ONCE() for smp_store_release()
> c. Dependencies for both smp_load_acquire() and
> smp_store_release().
> d. smp_wmb() for smp_store_release() in first thread
> of ISA2 and Z6.2.
> e. smp_rmb() for smp_load_acquire() in last thread of ISA2.
>
> 2. MP (see test6.pdf for nickname translation)
>
> a. smp_store_release() / smp_load_acquire()
> b. rcu_assign_pointer() / rcu_dereference()
> c. smp_wmb() / smp_rmb()
> d. Replacing either of the above with smp_mb()
>
> 3. SB
>
> a. smp_mb(), as in lockless wait-wakeup coordination.
> And as in sys_membarrier()-scheduler coordination,
> for that matter.
>
> Others?
So I have no idea what you're proposing here. The above is just a bunch
of words without meaning :-(
Powered by blists - more mailing lists