[lkml]   [2011]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: call_function_many: fix list delete vs add race
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:46:26PM +1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 12:43:56PM +1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >>
> >> That said, I do think that if your memory ordering is much weaker than
> >> x86, you are going to see bugs that most testers don't see, and it
> >> simply might not be worth it.
> >
> > IBM's CPUs do split the difference, with s390 having somewhat stronger
> > ordering than x86, and with powerpc being rather weaker
> I'm not talking about memory ordering as done by the cpu, but as done
> by the spinlock operations. They can be arbitrarily strong, even if
> the CPU architecture itself might be weakly ordered.

Got it.

[ . . . ]

> Quite frankly, the POWER case is made worse by the fact that the
> synchronization primitives have this total confusion about "pipeline"
> synchronization due to historical implementation oddities etc. Talk
> about crazy. The whole "isync" vs "sync" vs "lwsync" thing is just an
> embarrassment.

I am always ready to exploit embarrassing parallelism!

Thanx, Paul

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-02-01 15:15    [W:0.055 / U:4.552 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site