lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH -tip] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory barrier (v9)

* Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 08:36:35AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Unless this question is answered, Ingo's SA_RUNNING signal proposal, as
> > > appealing as it may look at a first glance, falls into the
> > > "fundamentally broken" category. [...]
> >
> > How is it different from your syscall? I.e. which lines of code make the
> > difference? We could certainly apply the (trivial) barrier change to
> > context_switch().
>
> I think it is just easy for userspace to misuse or think it does something
> that it doesn't (because of races).

That wasnt my question though. The question i asked Mathieu was to show how
SA_RUNNING is "fundamentally broken" for librcu use while sys_membarrier() is
not?

This is really what he claims above. (i preserved the quote)

It must be a misunderstanding either on my side or on his side. (Once that is
cleared we can discuss further usecases for SA_RUNNING.)

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-03-16 14:17    [W:0.071 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site