On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 07:33:25PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 10:15 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:54:59PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 13:35 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:45:57PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> xagsmtp5.20140307174618.3...@vmsdvm6.vnet.ibm.com
> X-Xagent-Gateway: vmsdvm6.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP5 at VMSDVM6)
>
> On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 10:01 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:26:36PM +0100, Torvald
On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 10:15 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:54:59PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 13:35 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:00:32AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at
On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 10:01 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:26:36PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > xagsmtp3.20140305162928.8...@uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com
> > X-Xagent-Gateway: uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP3 at UK1VSC)
> >
> > On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 11:00 -0800, Paul E.
On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 10:01 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:26:36PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
xagsmtp3.20140305162928.8...@uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com
X-Xagent-Gateway: uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP3 at UK1VSC)
On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 11:00 -0800, Paul E. McKenney
On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 10:15 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:54:59PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 13:35 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:00:32AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:46:19PM
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:45:57PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
xagsmtp5.20140307174618.3...@vmsdvm6.vnet.ibm.com
X-Xagent-Gateway: vmsdvm6.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP5 at VMSDVM6)
On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 10:01 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:26:36PM +0100, Torvald Riegel
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 07:33:25PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 10:15 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:54:59PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 13:35 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:00:32AM -0800,
On 5 March 2014 17:15, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 22:11 +, Peter Sewell wrote:
>> On 3 March 2014 20:44, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 04:05 -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
>> >> On 1 March 2014 08:03, Paul E. McKenney
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On Sat, Mar 01,
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:54:59PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 13:35 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:00:32AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:46:19PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > > >
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:26:36PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> xagsmtp3.20140305162928.8...@uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com
> X-Xagent-Gateway: uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP3 at UK1VSC)
>
> On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 11:00 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:46:19PM +0100, Torvald
On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 22:11 +, Peter Sewell wrote:
> On 3 March 2014 20:44, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 04:05 -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
> >> On 1 March 2014 08:03, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 04:06:34AM -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
> >> >> Hi
On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 13:35 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:00:32AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:46:19PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > > xagsmtp2.20140303204700.3...@vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com
> > > X-Xagent-Gateway: vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com
On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 11:00 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:46:19PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > xagsmtp2.20140303204700.3...@vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com
> > X-Xagent-Gateway: vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP2 at VMSDVMA)
> >
> > On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 11:20 -0800, Paul E.
On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 11:00 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:46:19PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
xagsmtp2.20140303204700.3...@vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com
X-Xagent-Gateway: vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP2 at VMSDVMA)
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 11:20 -0800, Paul E. McKenney
On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 13:35 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:00:32AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:46:19PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
xagsmtp2.20140303204700.3...@vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com
X-Xagent-Gateway: vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP2
On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 22:11 +, Peter Sewell wrote:
On 3 March 2014 20:44, Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 04:05 -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
On 1 March 2014 08:03, Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 04:06:34AM -0600,
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:26:36PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
xagsmtp3.20140305162928.8...@uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com
X-Xagent-Gateway: uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP3 at UK1VSC)
On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 11:00 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:46:19PM +0100, Torvald Riegel
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:54:59PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 13:35 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:00:32AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:46:19PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On 5 March 2014 17:15, Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 22:11 +, Peter Sewell wrote:
On 3 March 2014 20:44, Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 04:05 -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
On 1 March 2014 08:03, Paul E. McKenney
On 3 March 2014 20:44, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 04:05 -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
>> On 1 March 2014 08:03, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> > On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 04:06:34AM -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
>> >> Hi Paul,
>> >>
>> >> On 28 February 2014 18:50, Paul E. McKenney
>>
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:00:32AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:46:19PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > xagsmtp2.20140303204700.3...@vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com
> > X-Xagent-Gateway: vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP2 at VMSDVMA)
> >
> > On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 11:20 -0800,
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:46:19PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> xagsmtp2.20140303204700.3...@vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com
> X-Xagent-Gateway: vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP2 at VMSDVMA)
>
> On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 11:20 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 07:55:08PM +0100, Torvald
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:46:19PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
xagsmtp2.20140303204700.3...@vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com
X-Xagent-Gateway: vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP2 at VMSDVMA)
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 11:20 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 07:55:08PM +0100, Torvald Riegel
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:00:32AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:46:19PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
xagsmtp2.20140303204700.3...@vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com
X-Xagent-Gateway: vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP2 at VMSDVMA)
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 11:20 -0800, Paul E.
On 3 March 2014 20:44, Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 04:05 -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
On 1 March 2014 08:03, Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 04:06:34AM -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
Hi Paul,
On 28 February 2014
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 11:20 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 07:55:08PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > xagsmtp2.20140303190831.9...@uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com
> > X-Xagent-Gateway: uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP2 at UK1VSC)
> >
> > On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 16:50 -0800, Paul E.
On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 04:05 -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
> On 1 March 2014 08:03, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 04:06:34AM -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
> >> Hi Paul,
> >>
> >> On 28 February 2014 18:50, Paul E. McKenney
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:53:12PM
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 07:55:08PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> xagsmtp2.20140303190831.9...@uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com
> X-Xagent-Gateway: uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP2 at UK1VSC)
>
> On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 16:50 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > +o Do not use the results from the boolean "&&" and
On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 16:50 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> +oDo not use the results from the boolean "&&" and "||" when
> + dereferencing. For example, the following (rather improbable)
> + code is buggy:
> +
> + int a[2];
> + int index;
> + int
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 09:50 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Your proposal looks quite promising at first glance. But rather than
> try and comment on it immediately, I am going to take a number of uses of
> RCU from the Linux kernel and apply your proposal to them, then respond
> with the
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 11:47 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> >
> > 3. The comparison was against another RCU-protected pointer,
> > where that other pointer was properly fetched using one
> > of the RCU primitives.
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 09:01 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > Regarding the latter, we make a fresh start at each mo_consume load (ie,
> > we assume we know nothing -- L could have returned any possible value);
> > I believe this is easier
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 09:01 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com wrote:
Regarding the latter, we make a fresh start at each mo_consume load (ie,
we assume we know nothing -- L could have returned any possible value);
I believe this
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 09:50 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
Your proposal looks quite promising at first glance. But rather than
try and comment on it immediately, I am going to take a number of uses of
RCU from the Linux kernel and apply your proposal to them, then respond
with the results
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 11:47 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
3. The comparison was against another RCU-protected pointer,
where that other pointer was properly fetched using one
of the
On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 16:50 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
+oDo not use the results from the boolean and || when
+ dereferencing. For example, the following (rather improbable)
+ code is buggy:
+
+ int a[2];
+ int index;
+ int
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 07:55:08PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
xagsmtp2.20140303190831.9...@uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com
X-Xagent-Gateway: uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP2 at UK1VSC)
On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 16:50 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
+o Do not use the results from the boolean and || when
+
On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 04:05 -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
On 1 March 2014 08:03, Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 04:06:34AM -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
Hi Paul,
On 28 February 2014 18:50, Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
wrote:
On
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 11:20 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 07:55:08PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
xagsmtp2.20140303190831.9...@uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com
X-Xagent-Gateway: uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP2 at UK1VSC)
On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 16:50 -0800, Paul E. McKenney
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:44:52PM +, Peter Sewell wrote:
> On 2 March 2014 23:20, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 04:05:52AM -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
> >> On 1 March 2014 08:03, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 04:06:34AM -0600, Peter Sewell
On 2 March 2014 23:20, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 04:05:52AM -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
>> On 1 March 2014 08:03, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> > On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 04:06:34AM -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
>> >> Hi Paul,
>> >>
>> >> On 28 February 2014 18:50, Paul E.
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 04:05:52AM -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
> On 1 March 2014 08:03, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 04:06:34AM -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
> >> Hi Paul,
> >>
> >> On 28 February 2014 18:50, Paul E. McKenney
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at
On 1 March 2014 08:03, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 04:06:34AM -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> On 28 February 2014 18:50, Paul E. McKenney
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:53:12PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:47:08AM
On 1 March 2014 08:03, Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 04:06:34AM -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
Hi Paul,
On 28 February 2014 18:50, Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:53:12PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 04:05:52AM -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
On 1 March 2014 08:03, Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 04:06:34AM -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
Hi Paul,
On 28 February 2014 18:50, Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
wrote:
On 2 March 2014 23:20, Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 04:05:52AM -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
On 1 March 2014 08:03, Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 04:06:34AM -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
Hi Paul,
On 28
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:44:52PM +, Peter Sewell wrote:
On 2 March 2014 23:20, Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 04:05:52AM -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
On 1 March 2014 08:03, Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01,
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 04:06:34AM -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On 28 February 2014 18:50, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:53:12PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:47:08AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Feb 27,
Hi Paul,
On 28 February 2014 18:50, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:53:12PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:47:08AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Paul E. McKenney
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > 3. The
Hi Paul,
On 28 February 2014 18:50, Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:53:12PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:47:08AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Paul E. McKenney
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 04:06:34AM -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
Hi Paul,
On 28 February 2014 18:50, Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:53:12PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:47:08AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:53:12PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:47:08AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 3. The comparison was against another RCU-protected pointer,
> > > where
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:53:12PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:47:08AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
3. The comparison was against another RCU-protected pointer,
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 09:50:21AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:37:33PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > xagsmtp2.20140227154925.3...@vmsdvm9.vnet.ibm.com
> >
> > On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 11:54 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Paul
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:47:08AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> >
> > 3. The comparison was against another RCU-protected pointer,
> > where that other pointer was properly fetched using one
> > of the RCU
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
>
> 3. The comparison was against another RCU-protected pointer,
> where that other pointer was properly fetched using one
> of the RCU primitives. Here it doesn't matter which pointer
> you use. At least as
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 09:50:21AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:37:33PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > xagsmtp2.20140227154925.3...@vmsdvm9.vnet.ibm.com
> >
> > On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 11:54 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Paul
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 09:01:40AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> >
> > I agree that just considering syntactic properties of the program seems
> > to be insufficient. Making it instead depend on whether there is a
> > "semantic"
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:37:33PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> xagsmtp2.20140227154925.3...@vmsdvm9.vnet.ibm.com
>
> On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 11:54 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Good points. How about the following
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>
> I agree that just considering syntactic properties of the program seems
> to be insufficient. Making it instead depend on whether there is a
> "semantic" dependency due to a value being "necessary" to compute a
> result seems better.
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 11:54 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> >
> > Good points. How about the following replacements?
> >
> > 3. Adding or subtracting an integer to/from a chained pointer
> > results in another chained
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 11:54 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Good points. How about the following replacements?
3. Adding or subtracting an integer to/from a chained pointer
results in
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com wrote:
I agree that just considering syntactic properties of the program seems
to be insufficient. Making it instead depend on whether there is a
semantic dependency due to a value being necessary to compute a
result seems
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:37:33PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
xagsmtp2.20140227154925.3...@vmsdvm9.vnet.ibm.com
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 11:54 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Good points. How about the
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 09:01:40AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com wrote:
I agree that just considering syntactic properties of the program seems
to be insufficient. Making it instead depend on whether there is a
semantic
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 09:50:21AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:37:33PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
xagsmtp2.20140227154925.3...@vmsdvm9.vnet.ibm.com
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 11:54 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Paul E. McKenney
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
3. The comparison was against another RCU-protected pointer,
where that other pointer was properly fetched using one
of the RCU primitives. Here it doesn't matter which pointer
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:47:08AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
3. The comparison was against another RCU-protected pointer,
where that other pointer was properly fetched using one
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 09:50:21AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:37:33PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
xagsmtp2.20140227154925.3...@vmsdvm9.vnet.ibm.com
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 11:54 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Paul E. McKenney
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 18:43 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 22:10 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > > This needs to be as follows:
> > > >
> > > >
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 22:10 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > This needs to be as follows:
> > >
> > > [[carries_dependency]] int getzero(int i [[carries_dependency]])
> > > {
> > > return i -
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 02:04:30PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> xagsmtp2.20140226130517.3...@vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com
> X-Xagent-Gateway: vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP2 at VMSDVMA)
>
> On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 11:13 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 07:35:37PM +0100, Michael
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 09:28 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 05:55:50PM +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > > > To me that reads like
> > > >
> > > > int i;
> > > > int *q =
> > > > int **p =
> > > >
> > >
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 09:38 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> >
> > So, let me try to poke holes into your definition or increase my
> > understanding :) . You said "chain of pointers"(dereferences I assume),
> > e.g. if p is result of consume
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 22:10 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > This needs to be as follows:
> >
> > [[carries_dependency]] int getzero(int i [[carries_dependency]])
> > {
> > return i - i;
> > }
> >
> > Otherwise dependencies won't get carried
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 11:13 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 07:35:37PM +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > > But I'm pretty sure that any compiler guy must *hate* that current odd
> > > dependency-generation part,
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 11:13 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 07:35:37PM +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Linus Torvalds wrote:
But I'm pretty sure that any compiler guy must *hate* that current odd
dependency-generation part, and if I was a
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 22:10 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
This needs to be as follows:
[[carries_dependency]] int getzero(int i [[carries_dependency]])
{
return i - i;
}
Otherwise dependencies won't get carried through it.
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 09:38 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Michael Matz m...@suse.de wrote:
So, let me try to poke holes into your definition or increase my
understanding :) . You said chain of pointers(dereferences I assume),
e.g. if p is result of consume
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 09:28 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 05:55:50PM +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Linus Torvalds wrote:
To me that reads like
int i;
int *q = i;
int **p = q;
atomic_XXX (p, CONSUME);
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 02:04:30PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
xagsmtp2.20140226130517.3...@vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com
X-Xagent-Gateway: vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP2 at VMSDVMA)
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 11:13 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 07:35:37PM +0100, Michael Matz
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 22:10 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
This needs to be as follows:
[[carries_dependency]] int getzero(int i [[carries_dependency]])
{
return i - i;
}
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 18:43 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 22:10 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
This needs to be as follows:
[[carries_dependency]] int getzero(int i
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:32:38PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 02/25/14 17:15, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>I have for the last several years been 100% convinced that the Intel
> >>memory ordering is the right thing, and that people who like weak
> >>memory ordering are wrong and should try to
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:06:53PM -0500, George Spelvin wrote:
> wrote:
> > wrote:
> >> I have for the last several years been 100% convinced that the Intel
> >> memory ordering is the right thing, and that people who like weak
> >> memory ordering are wrong and should try to avoid reproducing
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 05:47:03PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> >
> > So let me see if I understand your reasoning. My best guess is that it
> > goes something like this:
> >
> > 1. The Linux kernel contains code that passes
On 02/25/14 17:15, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
I have for the last several years been 100% convinced that the Intel
memory ordering is the right thing, and that people who like weak
memory ordering are wrong and should try to avoid reproducing if at
all possible. But given that we have memory
wrote:
> wrote:
>> I have for the last several years been 100% convinced that the Intel
>> memory ordering is the right thing, and that people who like weak
>> memory ordering are wrong and should try to avoid reproducing if at
>> all possible.
>
> Are ARM and Power really the bad boys here? Or
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
>
> So let me see if I understand your reasoning. My best guess is that it
> goes something like this:
>
> 1. The Linux kernel contains code that passes pointers from
> rcu_dereference() through external functions.
No,
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:05:52PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> >
> > Litmus test 1:
> >
> > p = atomic_read(pp, consume);
> > if (p == )
> > return p->val;
> >
> >is *NOT* ordered
>
> Btw, don't get me wrong. I
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:05:52PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
Litmus test 1:
p = atomic_read(pp, consume);
if (p == variable)
return p-val;
is *NOT* ordered
Btw, don't get
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
So let me see if I understand your reasoning. My best guess is that it
goes something like this:
1. The Linux kernel contains code that passes pointers from
rcu_dereference() through external
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
I have for the last several years been 100% convinced that the Intel
memory ordering is the right thing, and that people who like weak
memory ordering are wrong and should try to avoid reproducing if at
all possible.
Are
On 02/25/14 17:15, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
I have for the last several years been 100% convinced that the Intel
memory ordering is the right thing, and that people who like weak
memory ordering are wrong and should try to avoid reproducing if at
all possible. But given that we have memory
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 05:47:03PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
So let me see if I understand your reasoning. My best guess is that it
goes something like this:
1. The Linux kernel contains code
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:06:53PM -0500, George Spelvin wrote:
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
I have for the last several years been 100% convinced that the Intel
memory ordering is the right thing, and that people who like weak
memory ordering are
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:32:38PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
On 02/25/14 17:15, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
I have for the last several years been 100% convinced that the Intel
memory ordering is the right thing, and that people who like weak
memory ordering are wrong and should try to avoid
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> Litmus test 1:
>
> p = atomic_read(pp, consume);
> if (p == )
> return p->val;
>
>is *NOT* ordered
Btw, don't get me wrong. I don't _like_ it not being ordered, and I
actually did spend some time thinking about my
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 03:35:04PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> >>
> >> What if the "nothing modifies 'p'" part looks like this:
> >>
> >> if (p != )
> >> return;
> >>
> >> and now any sane compiler will happily optimize
1 - 100 of 570 matches
Mail list logo
