[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1906041251210.1731-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 13:00:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, LKP <lkp@...org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>
Subject: Re: rcu_read_lock lost its compiler barrier
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So I don't technically disagree with anything you say,
That's good to know!
> I just wanted
> to point out that as far as the kernel is concerned, we do have higher
> quality expectations from the compiler than just "technically valid
> according to the C standard".
Which suggests asking whether these higher expectations should be
reflected in the Linux Kernel Memory Model. So far we have largely
avoided doing that sort of thing, although there are a few exceptions.
(For example, we assume the compiler does not destroy address
dependencies from volatile reads -- but we also warn that this
assumption may fail if the programmer does not follow some rules
described in one of Paul's documentation files.)
Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists