On 7/10/23 10:32, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
Am 7/7/2023 um 7:25 PM schrieb Olivier Dion:
On Fri, 07 Jul 2023, Jonas Oberhauser
wrote:
[...]
This is a request for comments on extending the atomic builtins API to
help avoiding redundant memory barriers. Indeed, there are
discrepancies between
Am 7/7/2023 um 7:25 PM schrieb Olivier Dion:
On Fri, 07 Jul 2023, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
[...]
This is a request for comments on extending the atomic builtins API to
help avoiding redundant memory barriers. Indeed, there are
discrepancies between the Linux kernel consistency memory model
On Fri, 07 Jul 2023, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
[...]
>> This is a request for comments on extending the atomic builtins API to
>> help avoiding redundant memory barriers. Indeed, there are
>> discrepancies between the Linux kernel consistency memory model (LKMM)
>> and the C11/C++11 memory
On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 10:04:06AM -0400, Olivier Dion wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jul 2023, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 03:20:31PM -0400, Olivier Dion wrote:
> [...]
> >> On x86-64 (gcc 13.1 -O2) we get:
> >>
> >> t0():
> >> movl$1, x(%rip)
> >> movl
On 7/4/23 06:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 at 10:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 03:20:31PM -0400, Olivier Dion wrote:
int x = 0;
int y = 0;
int r0, r1;
int dummy;
void t0(void)
{
__atomic_store_n(, 1, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
On Tue, 04 Jul 2023, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 03:20:31PM -0400, Olivier Dion wrote:
[...]
>> On x86-64 (gcc 13.1 -O2) we get:
>>
>> t0():
>> movl$1, x(%rip)
>> movl$1, %eax
>> xchgl dummy(%rip), %eax
>> lock orq $0,
Hi all,
Am 7/3/2023 um 9:20 PM schrieb Olivier Dion:
Hi all,
This is a request for comments on extending the atomic builtins API to
help avoiding redundant memory barriers. Indeed, there are
discrepancies between the Linux kernel consistency memory model (LKMM)
and the C11/C++11 memory
On Tue, 04 Jul 2023, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 01:19:23PM -0400, Olivier Dion wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Jul 2023, Alan Stern wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 03:20:31PM -0400, Olivier Dion wrote:
[...]
> Oh, is that it? Then I misunderstood entirely; I thought you were
>
On 7/5/23 03:05, Boqun Feng wrote:
On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 03:20:31PM -0400, Olivier Dion wrote:
[...]
NOTE: On x86-64, we found at least one corner case [7] with Clang where
a RELEASE exchange is optimized to a RELEASE store, when the returned
value of the exchange is unused, breaking the
On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 03:20:31PM -0400, Olivier Dion wrote:
[...]
> NOTE: On x86-64, we found at least one corner case [7] with Clang where
> a RELEASE exchange is optimized to a RELEASE store, when the returned
> value of the exchange is unused, breaking the above expectations.
> Although this
On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 04:25:45PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 01:19:23PM -0400, Olivier Dion wrote:
[ . . . ]
> > I am puzzled by this. Initialization of a shared variable does not need
> > to be atomic until its publication. Could you expand on this?
>
> In the
On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 01:19:23PM -0400, Olivier Dion wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2023, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 03:20:31PM -0400, Olivier Dion wrote:
> >> This is a request for comments on extending the atomic builtins API to
> >> help avoiding redundant memory barriers.
On Mon, 03 Jul 2023, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 03:20:31PM -0400, Olivier Dion wrote:
>> This is a request for comments on extending the atomic builtins API to
>> help avoiding redundant memory barriers. Indeed, there are
>
> What atomic builtins API are you talking about? The
On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 at 10:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 03:20:31PM -0400, Olivier Dion wrote:
>
> > int x = 0;
> > int y = 0;
> > int r0, r1;
> >
> > int dummy;
> >
> > void t0(void)
> > {
> > __atomic_store_n(, 1, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> >
> >
On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 03:20:31PM -0400, Olivier Dion wrote:
> int x = 0;
> int y = 0;
> int r0, r1;
>
> int dummy;
>
> void t0(void)
> {
> __atomic_store_n(, 1, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
>
> __atomic_exchange_n(, 1, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST);
>
On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 03:20:31PM -0400, Olivier Dion wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is a request for comments on extending the atomic builtins API to
> help avoiding redundant memory barriers. Indeed, there are
What atomic builtins API are you talking about? The kernel's? That's
what it sounded
16 matches
Mail list logo
