search for: mckenney

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:24:49PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 12:08:01PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:51:48PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:33:39AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:24:21PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > [ . . . ] > > &gt...

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:24:49PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 12:08:01PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:51:48PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:33:39AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:24:21PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > [ . . . ] > > &gt...

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 02:20:46PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:24:34PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > > On 01/14/2016 12:48 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > >So SYNC_RMB is intended to implement smp_rmb(), correct? > > Yes. > > > > > >You could use SYNC_ACQUIRE() to im...

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 02:20:46PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:24:34PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > > On 01/14/2016 12:48 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > >So SYNC_RMB is intended to implement smp_rmb(), correct? > > Yes. > > > > > >You could use SYNC_ACQUIRE() to im...

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:39:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > Should we start putting litmus tests for the various examples > somewhere, perhaps in a litmus-tests directory within each participating > architecture? I have a pile of powerpc-related litmus tests on my laptop, > but they probably aren't doing all that much good there....

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:39:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > Should we start putting litmus tests for the various examples > somewhere, perhaps in a litmus-tests directory within each participating > architecture? I have a pile of powerpc-related litmus tests on my laptop, > but they probably aren't doing all that much good there....

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:16:09PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:03:22PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:42:43PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:58:53PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > PPC Overlapping Group-B sets version 4 > > > > "" > > > > (* When the Group-B sets fro...

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:16:09PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:03:22PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:42:43PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:58:53PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > PPC Overlapping Group-B sets version 4 > > > > "" > > > > (* When the Group-B sets fro...

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 02:55:10PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:36:50PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > > On 01/14/2016 01:29 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > >>On 01/14/2016 12:34 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > >>> > > >>>The WRC+addr+addr is OK because data d...

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:42:43PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:58:53PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:27:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:46:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:13:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > > > And the stuf...

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 02:55:10PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:36:50PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > > On 01/14/2016 01:29 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > >>On 01/14/2016 12:34 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > >>> > > >>>The WRC+addr+addr is OK because data d...

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:42:43PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:58:53PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:27:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:46:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:13:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > > > And the stuf...

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:29:13PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > So smp_mb() provides transitivity, as do pairs of smp_store_release() > and smp_read_acquire(), But they provide different grades of transitivity, which is where all the confusion lays. smp_mb() is strongly/globally transitive, all CPUs will agree on the order. Whereas the RCpc r...

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:29:13PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > So smp_mb() provides transitivity, as do pairs of smp_store_release() > and smp_read_acquire(), But they provide different grades of transitivity, which is where all the confusion lays. smp_mb() is strongly/globally transitive, all CPUs will agree on the order. Whereas the RCpc r...

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:24:32AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 02:55:10PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:36:50PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > > > > On 01/14/2016 01:29 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: &g...

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:24:32AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 02:55:10PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:36:50PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > > > > On 01/14/2016 01:29 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: &g...

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 02:41:34PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:24:32AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > See my earlier reply [1] (but also, your WRC Linux example looks more > > > > like a variant on WWC and I co...

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 02:41:34PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:24:32AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > See my earlier reply [1] (but also, your WRC Linux example looks more > > > > like a variant on WWC and I co...

...ntime penalty, as discussed in the following thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg54852.html Tested on x86_64 and ppc64, also compiled the four cases (NULL/non-NULL and const/non-const) with gcc version 4.1.2, and hand-checked the assembly output. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> --- rcupdate.h | 11 +++++++---- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff -urpNa -X dontdiff linux-2.6.24-rc1-ego/include/linux/rcupdate.h linux-2.6.24-rc1-egoxu/include/linux/rcupdate.h --- linux-2.6.24-rc1-ego/include/linux/rcupdate.h 2007-11-06...

On 01/14/2016 01:29 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >> On 01/14/2016 12:34 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >>> >>> The WRC+addr+addr is OK because data dependencies are not required to be >>> transitive, in other words, they are not required to flow from one CPU to >>> another without the help of an...