[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181217223524.GH2218@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 23:35:24 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: objtool warnings for kernel/trace/trace_selftest_dynamic.o
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 12:55:35PM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 08:29:38PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > When/if we get the LTO trainwreck sorted -- which very much includes
> > getting that memory-order-consume fixed -- we can revisit all that.
>
> What do you mean? I'm not aware of any LTO problems with memory-order-consume?
The compiler is basically allowed to break RCU (and anything else that
depends on read-read dependencies). LTO makes it _far_ more likely this
happens.
We need guarantees (and possible switches) from the compiler folks that
this will not happen before I'll retract my NAK from any LTO enabling.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists