[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxwez8zSa2f2GpcaAkFX27Vt-s0nWdd0mZ6yGM8ipCR0A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 11:10:58 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
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>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing 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 Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> The locking pattern is fairly simple and shows where RCpc comes apart
> from expectation real nice.
So who does RCpc right now for the unlock-lock sequence? Somebody
mentioned powerpc. Anybody else?
How nasty would be be to make powerpc conform? I will always advocate
tighter locking and ordering rules over looser ones..
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists