----- Original Message ----- > From: "Duncan Sands" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:57:51 AM > Subject: Re: [lttng-dev] Alternative to signals/sys_membarrier() in liburcu > > Hi Michael, > > On 11/02/15 01:03, Michael Sullivan wrote: > > I've been looking at the RCU library (as part of gathering examples for my > > research on weak memory models) and was thinking about ways to force other > > threads to issue barriers. Since it seems like sys_membarrier() never made > > it > > into the kernel, I was pondering whether there was some other way to more > > or > > less get its effect; as it turns out, there is, but it is a hack: > > mprotect(2). > > is it clear that sys_membarrier is really dead?
There were no technical objections to sys_membarrier. The only objection left was that only liburcu was needing it, and kernel maintainers were concerned to introduce a kernel API for only a single user. It would be good if we can come up with other uses of sys_membarrier. Thoughts ? Thanks, Mathieu > > Ciao, Duncan. > > _______________________________________________ > lttng-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev > -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com _______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
