On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 10:24:04PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > And another note: this all assumes that STORE-MB-LOAD works "correctly", yes?
> > > We have other code which relies on that, should not be a problem.
> >
> > We have been working with Doug Lea of SUNY Oswego, Sebatian Burckhardt of
> > University of Pennsylvania, and Vijay Saraswat of IBM Research towards
> > a "universal memory model" that accommodates all machines. Currently,
> > it does in fact handle store-mb-load the way we all want, thankfully!
>
> We should add that many places in the kernel do depend on proper behavior
> for this data access pattern. So whatever "universal memory model" we end
> up with, it had better handle the pattern correctly if Linux is to support
> it.
Agreed!
> It's interesting to note, however, that this does exclude simple MESI.
Yep! And also a number of compiler optimizations, as it turns out. ;-)
There is a tension between nice-to-software memory-barrier properties
on the one hand and easily understood code on the other. But I guess
that this is true of pretty much any software tool.
Thanx, Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
