[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220826124812.GA3007435@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 05:48:12 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: stern@...land.harvard.edu, parri.andrea@...il.com, will@...nel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, boqun.feng@...il.com, npiggin@...il.com,
dhowells@...hat.com, j.alglave@....ac.uk, luc.maranget@...ia.fr,
akiyks@...il.com, dlustig@...dia.com, joel@...lfernandes.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: "Verifying and Optimizing Compact NUMA-Aware Locks on Weak Memory
Models"
Hello!
I have not yet done more than glance at this one, but figured I should
send it along sooner rather than later.
"Verifying and Optimizing Compact NUMA-Aware Locks on Weak
Memory Models", Antonio Paolillo, Hernán Ponce-de-León, Thomas
Haas, Diogo Behrens, Rafael Chehab, Ming Fu, and Roland Meyer.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.15240
The claim is that the queued spinlocks implementation with CNA violates
LKMM but actually works on all architectures having a formal hardware
memory model.
Thoughts?
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists