[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d57ed540-2001-724d-ed22-eee35354840f@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 11:34:47 +0100
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To: paulmck@...ux.ibm.com
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Joel Fernandes, Google" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix: trace sched switch start/stop racy updates
On 18/08/2019 00:00, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[...]
> Linus noted that he believes that compilers for architectures supporting
> Linux can be trusted to avoid store-to-load transformations, invented
> stores, and unnecessary store tearing. Should these appear, Linus would
> report a bug against the compiler and expect it to be fixed.
>
>> I'll be honest, it's not 100% clear to me when those optimizations can
>> actually be done (maybe the branch thingy but the others are dubious), and
>> it's even less clear when compilers *actually* do it - only that they have
>> been reported to do it (so it's not made up).
>
> There is significant unclarity inherent in the situation. The standard
> says one thing, different compilers do other things, and developers
> often expect yet a third thing. And sometimes things change over time,
> for example, the ca. 2011 dictim against compilers inventing data races.
>
> Hey, they didn't teach me this aspect of software development in school,
> either. ;-)
>
Gotta keeps things "interesting" somehow, eh...
Thanks for the clarifications.
> Thanx, Paul
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists