[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180712183344.GQ2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 20:33:44 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"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>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.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 01:04:27PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> Which raises the question of whether RCtso (adopting Daniel's suggested
> term) is also too subtle or counter-intuitive for spinlocks.
IMO yes, RCtso also sucks :-) But in my 'fight' for RCsc it disallows
RCpc and captures the current state of affairs more accurately.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists