[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210607182335.GI18427@gate.crashing.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 13:23:35 -0500
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
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, Jun 07, 2021 at 08:27:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > The barrier() thing can work - all we need to do is to simply make it
> > > > > impossible for gcc to validly create anything but a conditional
> > > > > branch.
> > > What would you suggest as a way of instructing the compiler to emit the
> > > conditional branch that we are looking for?
> >
> > You write it in the assembler code.
> >
> > Yes, it sucks. But it is the only way to get a branch if you really
> > want one. Now, you do not really need one here anyway, so there may be
> > some other way to satisfy the actual requirements.
>
> Hmmm... What do you see Peter asking for that is different than what
> I am asking for? ;-)
I don't know what you are referring to, sorry?
I know what you asked for: literally some way to tell the compiler to
emit a conditional branch. If that is what you want, the only way to
make sure that is what you get is by writing exactly that in assembler.
Segher
Powered by blists - more mailing lists