[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180711170053.GM2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 19:00:53 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and
remove it for ordinary release/acquire
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 04:57:51PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> It might be simple to model, but I worry this weakens our locking
> implementations to a point where they will not be understood by the average
> kernel developer. As I've said before, I would prefer "full" RCsc locking,
Another vote for RCsc locks. The (in)famous hold-out is of course
PowerPC, but it now looks like RISC-V is following where they I really
rather wish they didn't.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists