lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework
From
Date
On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 23:48 +0000, Peter Sewell wrote:
> On 18 February 2014 20:43, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 12:12 +0000, Peter Sewell wrote:
> >> Several of you have said that the standard and compiler should not
> >> permit speculative writes of atomics, or (effectively) that the
> >> compiler should preserve dependencies. In simple examples it's easy
> >> to see what that means, but in general it's not so clear what the
> >> language should guarantee, because dependencies may go via non-atomic
> >> code in other compilation units, and we have to consider the extent to
> >> which it's desirable to limit optimisation there.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> 2) otherwise, the language definition should prohibit it but the
> >> compiler would have to preserve dependencies even in compilation
> >> units that have no mention of atomics. It's unclear what the
> >> (runtime and compiler development) cost of that would be in
> >> practice - perhaps Torvald could comment?
> >
> > If I'm reading the standard correctly, it requires that data
> > dependencies are preserved through loads and stores, including nonatomic
> > ones. That sounds convenient because it allows programmers to use
> > temporary storage.
>
> The standard only needs this for consume chains,

That's right, and the runtime cost / implementation problems of
mo_consume was what I was making statements about. Sorry if that wasn't
clear.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-19 11:41    [W:0.094 / U:0.308 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site