lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [ltt-dev] [RFC git tree] Userspace RCU (urcu) for Linux (repost)
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:13:29PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > Actually the best way to do this would be:
> >
> > while (ACCESS_ONCE(sig_done) < 1)
> > continue;
> >
> > If ACCESS_ONCE() needs to be made architecture-specific to make this
> > really work on Blackfin, we should make that change.
>
> I really wouldn't want to mix up compiler barriers and cache barriers this
> way.
>
> I think "cpu_relax()" is likely the right thing to piggy-back on for
> broken cache-coherency.
>
> > And, now that you mention it, I have heard rumors that other CPU
> > families can violate cache coherence in some circumstances.
>
> I personally suspect that the BF pseudo-SMP code is just broken, and that
> it likely has tons of subtle bugs and races - because we _do_ depend on
> cache coherency at least for accessing objects next to each other. I just
> never personally felt like I had the energy to care deeply enough.
>
> But I draw the line at making ACCESS_ONCE() imply anything but a compiler
> optimization issue.

In other words, you are arguing for using ACCESS_ONCE() in the loops,
but keeping the old ACCESS_ONCE() definition, and declaring BF hardware
broken?

I am OK with that, just wanting to make sure I understand what you are
asking us to do.

Thanx, Paul


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-12 21:41    [W:0.251 / U:0.532 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site