[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180222182717.GS25181@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 19:27:17 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
Albert Ou <albert@...ive.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] riscv/locking: Strengthen spin_lock() and
spin_unlock()
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:13:17AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> So we have something that is not all that rare in the Linux kernel
> community, namely two conflicting more-or-less concurrent changes.
> This clearly needs to be resolved, either by us not strengthening the
> Linux-kernel memory model in the way we were planning to or by you
> strengthening RISC-V to be no weaker than PowerPC for these sorts of
> externally viewed release-acquire situations.
>
> Other thoughts?
Like said in the other email, I would _much_ prefer to not go weaker
than PPC, I find that PPC is already painfully weak at times.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists