On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 08:06:51AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:41 AM Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> >
> > We are considering adding unmarked accesses, for example, accesses
> > protected by locks. One possible litmus test (not yet supported!)
> > might look like this:
>
On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 08:06:51AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:41 AM Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> >
> > We are considering adding unmarked accesses, for example, accesses
> > protected by locks. One possible litmus test (not yet supported!)
> > might look like this:
>
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 7:57 AM Alan Stern wrote:
>
> You can look at a memory model from three points of view:
>
> 1. To a programmer, the model provides both guarantees (a certain
> code snippet will never yield a particular undesired result)
> and warnings (another snippet
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 7:57 AM Alan Stern wrote:
>
> You can look at a memory model from three points of view:
>
> 1. To a programmer, the model provides both guarantees (a certain
> code snippet will never yield a particular undesired result)
> and warnings (another snippet
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:41 AM Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
>
> We are considering adding unmarked accesses, for example, accesses
> protected by locks. One possible litmus test (not yet supported!)
> might look like this:
Fair enough - you do want to have the distinction between "marked" and
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:41 AM Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
>
> We are considering adding unmarked accesses, for example, accesses
> protected by locks. One possible litmus test (not yet supported!)
> might look like this:
Fair enough - you do want to have the distinction between "marked" and
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 12:23:33PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 12:05 PM Paul E. McKenney
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 3. Introduce a new marking/attribute in the .def file that indicates
> > > whether an access is
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 12:23:33PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 12:05 PM Paul E. McKenney
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 3. Introduce a new marking/attribute in the .def file that indicates
> > > whether an access is
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 12:23:33PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 12:05 PM Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> >
> > 3. Introduce a new marking/attribute in the .def file that indicates
> > whether an access is volatile or implies a compiler barrier.
> > This
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 12:23:33PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 12:05 PM Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> >
> > 3. Introduce a new marking/attribute in the .def file that indicates
> > whether an access is volatile or implies a compiler barrier.
> > This
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 12:05 PM Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
>
> 3. Introduce a new marking/attribute in the .def file that indicates
> whether an access is volatile or implies a compiler barrier.
> This might allow herd to be more selective about control dependencies,
>
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 12:05 PM Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
>
> 3. Introduce a new marking/attribute in the .def file that indicates
> whether an access is volatile or implies a compiler barrier.
> This might allow herd to be more selective about control dependencies,
>
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 11:40:13AM +0200, Roman Penyaev wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:08 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 May 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 09:59:28AM -0500, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:29 AM Alan Stern
> >> >
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 11:40:13AM +0200, Roman Penyaev wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:08 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 May 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 09:59:28AM -0500, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:29 AM Alan Stern
> >> >
On Wed, 6 Jun 2018, Roman Penyaev wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Jun 2018, Roman Penyaev wrote:
> >
> >> > Preserving the order of volatile accesses isn't sufficient. The
> >> > compiler is still allowed to translate
> >> >
> >> > r1 =
On Wed, 6 Jun 2018, Roman Penyaev wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Jun 2018, Roman Penyaev wrote:
> >
> >> > Preserving the order of volatile accesses isn't sufficient. The
> >> > compiler is still allowed to translate
> >> >
> >> > r1 =
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2018, Roman Penyaev wrote:
>
>> > Preserving the order of volatile accesses isn't sufficient. The
>> > compiler is still allowed to translate
>> >
>> > r1 = READ_ONCE(x);
>> > if (r1) {
>> > ...
>>
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2018, Roman Penyaev wrote:
>
>> > Preserving the order of volatile accesses isn't sufficient. The
>> > compiler is still allowed to translate
>> >
>> > r1 = READ_ONCE(x);
>> > if (r1) {
>> > ...
>>
On Wed, 6 Jun 2018, Roman Penyaev wrote:
> > Preserving the order of volatile accesses isn't sufficient. The
> > compiler is still allowed to translate
> >
> > r1 = READ_ONCE(x);
> > if (r1) {
> > ...
> > }
> > WRITE_ONCE(y, r2);
> >
> > into
On Wed, 6 Jun 2018, Roman Penyaev wrote:
> > Preserving the order of volatile accesses isn't sufficient. The
> > compiler is still allowed to translate
> >
> > r1 = READ_ONCE(x);
> > if (r1) {
> > ...
> > }
> > WRITE_ONCE(y, r2);
> >
> > into
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:08 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 09:59:28AM -0500, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:29 AM Alan Stern
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > >
>> > > > Can't we simplify the whole sequence as
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:08 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 09:59:28AM -0500, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:29 AM Alan Stern
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > >
>> > > > Can't we simplify the whole sequence as
On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 10:17:47AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > One crude but effective workaround is to replicate the code following the
> > "if" statement into both legs of the "if" statement. This has the effect
> > of extending the control
On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 10:17:47AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > One crude but effective workaround is to replicate the code following the
> > "if" statement into both legs of the "if" statement. This has the effect
> > of extending the control
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> One crude but effective workaround is to replicate the code following the
> "if" statement into both legs of the "if" statement. This has the effect
> of extending the control dependency to cover all of the code that used to
> follow the "if"
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> One crude but effective workaround is to replicate the code following the
> "if" statement into both legs of the "if" statement. This has the effect
> of extending the control dependency to cover all of the code that used to
> follow the "if"
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:27:33AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 05:01:01PM -0500, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:08 PM Alan Stern
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Indeed. The very first line Linus
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:27:33AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 05:01:01PM -0500, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:08 PM Alan Stern
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Indeed. The very first line Linus
On Wed, 30 May 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 05:01:01PM -0500, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:08 PM Alan Stern
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Indeed. The very first line Linus quoted in his first reply to me
> > > (elided above) was:
> > >
> > >
On Wed, 30 May 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 05:01:01PM -0500, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:08 PM Alan Stern
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Indeed. The very first line Linus quoted in his first reply to me
> > > (elided above) was:
> > >
> > >
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 05:01:01PM -0500, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:08 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> >
> > Indeed. The very first line Linus quoted in his first reply to me
> > (elided above) was:
> >
> > Putting this into herd would be extremely difficult, if not
> >
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 05:01:01PM -0500, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:08 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> >
> > Indeed. The very first line Linus quoted in his first reply to me
> > (elided above) was:
> >
> > Putting this into herd would be extremely difficult, if not
> >
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:08 PM Alan Stern wrote:
>
> Indeed. The very first line Linus quoted in his first reply to me
> (elided above) was:
>
> Putting this into herd would be extremely difficult, if not
> impossible,
> because it involves analyzing code that was not executed.
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:08 PM Alan Stern wrote:
>
> Indeed. The very first line Linus quoted in his first reply to me
> (elided above) was:
>
> Putting this into herd would be extremely difficult, if not
> impossible,
> because it involves analyzing code that was not executed.
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 04:28:56PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > > My current guess is that we need to change the memory-model tool. If
> > > > that is the case, here are some possible resolutions:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Make herd's C-language
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 04:28:56PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > > My current guess is that we need to change the memory-model tool. If
> > > > that is the case, here are some possible resolutions:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Make herd's C-language
On Wed, 30 May 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > My current guess is that we need to change the memory-model tool. If
> > > that is the case, here are some possible resolutions:
> > >
> > > 1.Make herd's C-language control dependencies work the same as its
> > > assembly language,
On Wed, 30 May 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > My current guess is that we need to change the memory-model tool. If
> > > that is the case, here are some possible resolutions:
> > >
> > > 1.Make herd's C-language control dependencies work the same as its
> > > assembly language,
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 03:08:43PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 09:59:28AM -0500, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:29 AM Alan Stern
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Can't we simplify the whole
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 03:08:43PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 09:59:28AM -0500, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:29 AM Alan Stern
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Can't we simplify the whole
On Wed, 30 May 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 09:59:28AM -0500, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:29 AM Alan Stern
> > wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > Can't we simplify the whole sequence as basically
> > > >
> > > > A
> > > > if (!B)
> > > >
On Wed, 30 May 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 09:59:28AM -0500, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:29 AM Alan Stern
> > wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > Can't we simplify the whole sequence as basically
> > > >
> > > > A
> > > > if (!B)
> > > >
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 09:59:28AM -0500, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:29 AM Alan Stern
> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Can't we simplify the whole sequence as basically
> > >
> > > A
> > > if (!B)
> > > D
> > >
> > > for that "not B" case, and just think about
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 09:59:28AM -0500, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:29 AM Alan Stern
> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Can't we simplify the whole sequence as basically
> > >
> > > A
> > > if (!B)
> > > D
> > >
> > > for that "not B" case, and just think about
On Wed, 30 May 2018, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:29 AM Alan Stern
> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Can't we simplify the whole sequence as basically
> > >
> > > A
> > > if (!B)
> > > D
> > >
> > > for that "not B" case, and just think about that. IOW, let's ignore
On Wed, 30 May 2018, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:29 AM Alan Stern
> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Can't we simplify the whole sequence as basically
> > >
> > > A
> > > if (!B)
> > > D
> > >
> > > for that "not B" case, and just think about that. IOW, let's ignore
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:29 AM Alan Stern
wrote:
> >
> > Can't we simplify the whole sequence as basically
> >
> > A
> > if (!B)
> > D
> >
> > for that "not B" case, and just think about that. IOW, let's ignore the
> > whole "not executed" code.
> Your listing is slightly
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:29 AM Alan Stern
wrote:
> >
> > Can't we simplify the whole sequence as basically
> >
> > A
> > if (!B)
> > D
> >
> > for that "not B" case, and just think about that. IOW, let's ignore the
> > whole "not executed" code.
> Your listing is slightly
On Tue, 29 May 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 04:10:02PM -0500, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 3:49 PM Alan Stern
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Putting this into herd would be extremely difficult, if not impossible,
> > > because it involves analyzing code
On Tue, 29 May 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 04:10:02PM -0500, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 3:49 PM Alan Stern
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Putting this into herd would be extremely difficult, if not impossible,
> > > because it involves analyzing code
On Tue, 29 May 2018, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 3:49 PM Alan Stern
> wrote:
>
> > Putting this into herd would be extremely difficult, if not impossible,
> > because it involves analyzing code that was not executed.
>
> Does it?
>
> Can't we simplify the whole sequence as
On Tue, 29 May 2018, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 3:49 PM Alan Stern
> wrote:
>
> > Putting this into herd would be extremely difficult, if not impossible,
> > because it involves analyzing code that was not executed.
>
> Does it?
>
> Can't we simplify the whole sequence as
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 04:10:02PM -0500, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 3:49 PM Alan Stern
> wrote:
>
> > Putting this into herd would be extremely difficult, if not impossible,
> > because it involves analyzing code that was not executed.
One (ugly) way to handle it, assuming
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 04:10:02PM -0500, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 3:49 PM Alan Stern
> wrote:
>
> > Putting this into herd would be extremely difficult, if not impossible,
> > because it involves analyzing code that was not executed.
One (ugly) way to handle it, assuming
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 3:49 PM Alan Stern
wrote:
> Putting this into herd would be extremely difficult, if not impossible,
> because it involves analyzing code that was not executed.
Does it?
Can't we simplify the whole sequence as basically
A
if (!B)
D
for that "not B"
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 3:49 PM Alan Stern
wrote:
> Putting this into herd would be extremely difficult, if not impossible,
> because it involves analyzing code that was not executed.
Does it?
Can't we simplify the whole sequence as basically
A
if (!B)
D
for that "not B"
On Tue, 29 May 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 02:35:34PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 May 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > The litmus test below is a first attempt to model Roman's rcu-rr
> > > round-robin RCU-protected linked list.
On Tue, 29 May 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 02:35:34PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 May 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > The litmus test below is a first attempt to model Roman's rcu-rr
> > > round-robin RCU-protected linked list.
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 02:35:34PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > The litmus test below is a first attempt to model Roman's rcu-rr
> > round-robin RCU-protected linked list. His test code, which includes
> > the algorithm under test,
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 02:35:34PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > The litmus test below is a first attempt to model Roman's rcu-rr
> > round-robin RCU-protected linked list. His test code, which includes
> > the algorithm under test,
On Mon, 28 May 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Hello!
>
> The litmus test below is a first attempt to model Roman's rcu-rr
> round-robin RCU-protected linked list. His test code, which includes
> the algorithm under test, may be found here:
>
>
On Mon, 28 May 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Hello!
>
> The litmus test below is a first attempt to model Roman's rcu-rr
> round-robin RCU-protected linked list. His test code, which includes
> the algorithm under test, may be found here:
>
>
Hello!
The litmus test below is a first attempt to model Roman's rcu-rr
round-robin RCU-protected linked list. His test code, which includes
the algorithm under test, may be found here:
https://github.com/rouming/rcu-rr/blob/master/rcu-rr.c
The P0() process below roughly corresponds to
Hello!
The litmus test below is a first attempt to model Roman's rcu-rr
round-robin RCU-protected linked list. His test code, which includes
the algorithm under test, may be found here:
https://github.com/rouming/rcu-rr/blob/master/rcu-rr.c
The P0() process below roughly corresponds to
64 matches
Mail list logo
