[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.20.13.2106072103320.7184@monopod.intra.ispras.ru>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 21:07:58 +0300 (MSK)
From: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@...ras.ru>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] LKMM: Add volatile_if()
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > So the barrier which is a compiler barrier but not a machine barrier is
> > __atomic_signal_fence(model), but internally GCC will not treat it smarter
> > than an asm-with-memory-clobber today.
>
> It will do nothing for relaxed ordering, and do blockage for everything
> else. Can it do anything weaker than that?
It's a "blockage instruction" after transitioning to RTL, but before that,
on GIMPLE, the compiler sees it properly as a corresponding built-in, and
may optimize according to given memory model. And on RTL, well, if anyone
cares they'll need to invent RTL representation for it, I guess.
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists