On Fri 2014-09-05 12:17:16, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 09/05/2014 08:37 AM, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Peter Hurley
> >> On 09/05/2014 04:30 AM, David Laight wrote:
> >>> I've seen gcc generate 32bit accesses for 16bit structure members on arm.
> >>> It does this because of the more limited range
On Fri 2014-09-05 12:17:16, Peter Hurley wrote:
On 09/05/2014 08:37 AM, David Laight wrote:
From: Peter Hurley
On 09/05/2014 04:30 AM, David Laight wrote:
I've seen gcc generate 32bit accesses for 16bit structure members on arm.
It does this because of the more limited range of the
> > Yes - because if you think about it that tells you that nobody is hitting
> > it with the old code and it probably doesn't matter.
>
> I don't understand this reply.
It's a matter of priorities. There are hundreds of potential security
holes turned up by scanners, 2,500+ filed bugs in kernel
On 09/14/2014 07:24 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>> So a problem that no one has ever complained about on _any_ arch is suddenly
>> a problem on a subset of Alpha cpus, but a problem I know exists on Alpha
>> isn't important because no one's filed a bug about it?
>
> Yes - because if you think
On 09/14/2014 07:24 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
So a problem that no one has ever complained about on _any_ arch is suddenly
a problem on a subset of Alpha cpus, but a problem I know exists on Alpha
isn't important because no one's filed a bug about it?
Yes - because if you think about it
Yes - because if you think about it that tells you that nobody is hitting
it with the old code and it probably doesn't matter.
I don't understand this reply.
It's a matter of priorities. There are hundreds of potential security
holes turned up by scanners, 2,500+ filed bugs in kernel
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 12:24:27AM +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> > So a problem that no one has ever complained about on _any_ arch is suddenly
> > a problem on a subset of Alpha cpus, but a problem I know exists on Alpha
> > isn't important because no one's filed a bug about it?
>
> Yes -
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 12:24:27AM +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
So a problem that no one has ever complained about on _any_ arch is suddenly
a problem on a subset of Alpha cpus, but a problem I know exists on Alpha
isn't important because no one's filed a bug about it?
Yes - because
> So a problem that no one has ever complained about on _any_ arch is suddenly
> a problem on a subset of Alpha cpus, but a problem I know exists on Alpha
> isn't important because no one's filed a bug about it?
Yes - because if you think about it that tells you that nobody is hitting
it with the
So a problem that no one has ever complained about on _any_ arch is suddenly
a problem on a subset of Alpha cpus, but a problem I know exists on Alpha
isn't important because no one's filed a bug about it?
Yes - because if you think about it that tells you that nobody is hitting
it with the
On 09/11/2014 06:04 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>>> Is *that* what we are talking about? I was added to this conversation
>>> in the middle where it had already generalized, so I had no idea.
>>
>> No, this is just what brought this craziness to my attention.
>
> None of it is craziness. It's
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:04:11AM +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> > > Is *that* what we are talking about? I was added to this conversation
> > > in the middle where it had already generalized, so I had no idea.
> >
> > No, this is just what brought this craziness to my attention.
>
> None
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:48:06PM +0100, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 06:40 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> > >> The processor is free to re-order this to:
> > >>
> > >> STORE C
> > >> STORE B
> > >> UNLOCK
> > >>
> > >> That's because the unlock() only guarantees that:
> > >>
>
> > Is *that* what we are talking about? I was added to this conversation
> > in the middle where it had already generalized, so I had no idea.
>
> No, this is just what brought this craziness to my attention.
None of it is craziness. It's the real world leaking into the crazy
delusional world
Is *that* what we are talking about? I was added to this conversation
in the middle where it had already generalized, so I had no idea.
No, this is just what brought this craziness to my attention.
None of it is craziness. It's the real world leaking into the crazy
delusional world of
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:48:06PM +0100, James Bottomley wrote:
On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 06:40 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
The processor is free to re-order this to:
STORE C
STORE B
UNLOCK
That's because the unlock() only guarantees that:
Stores before the unlock in
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:04:11AM +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
Is *that* what we are talking about? I was added to this conversation
in the middle where it had already generalized, so I had no idea.
No, this is just what brought this craziness to my attention.
None of it is
On 09/11/2014 06:04 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
Is *that* what we are talking about? I was added to this conversation
in the middle where it had already generalized, so I had no idea.
No, this is just what brought this craziness to my attention.
None of it is craziness. It's the real
On 09/10/2014 05:48 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 06:40 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
>> On 09/08/2014 10:56 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 19:30 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
On 09/08/2014 01:50 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
>> But additionally, even if
On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 06:40 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 09/08/2014 10:56 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 19:30 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> >> On 09/08/2014 01:50 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> But additionally, even if gcc combines adjacent writes _that are part
>
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:18 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 09/08/2014 10:52 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>>
>> I think the whole "removing Alpha EV5" support is basically bonkers. Just
>> use set_bit in the tty layer. Alpha will continue to work as well as it
>> always has done and you won't
On 09/08/2014 10:52 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>
> I think the whole "removing Alpha EV5" support is basically bonkers. Just
> use set_bit in the tty layer. Alpha will continue to work as well as it
> always has done and you won't design out support for any future processor
> that turns out
On 09/08/2014 10:52 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
I think the whole removing Alpha EV5 support is basically bonkers. Just
use set_bit in the tty layer. Alpha will continue to work as well as it
always has done and you won't design out support for any future processor
that turns out not to
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:18 PM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 09/08/2014 10:52 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
I think the whole removing Alpha EV5 support is basically bonkers. Just
use set_bit in the tty layer. Alpha will continue to work as well as it
always has done and you
On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 06:40 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
On 09/08/2014 10:56 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 19:30 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
On 09/08/2014 01:50 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
But additionally, even if gcc combines adjacent writes _that are part
of the program
On 09/10/2014 05:48 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 06:40 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
On 09/08/2014 10:56 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 19:30 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
On 09/08/2014 01:50 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
But additionally, even if gcc combines
On 09/08/2014 03:17 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>>> I think the whole "removing Alpha EV5" support is basically bonkers. Just
>>> use set_bit in the tty layer. Alpha will continue to work as well as it
>>> always has done and you won't design out support for any future processor
>>> that turns
On 09/08/2014 06:47 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 09/08/2014 01:59 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 09/08/2014 10:52 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>>> On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 08:41:52 -0700
>>> "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
>>>
On 09/05/2014 08:31 AM, Peter Hurley wrote:
>
> Which is a bit
On 09/08/2014 10:56 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 19:30 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
>> On 09/08/2014 01:50 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
But additionally, even if gcc combines adjacent writes _that are part
of the program flow_ then I believe the situation is no worse
On Monday 08 September 2014 19:27:14 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 09/08/2014 03:43 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> >
> > This was years ago (possibly decades). We had to implement in-kernel
> > unaligned traps for the networking layer because it could access short
> > and int fields that weren't of
On Monday 08 September 2014 19:27:14 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 09/08/2014 03:43 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
This was years ago (possibly decades). We had to implement in-kernel
unaligned traps for the networking layer because it could access short
and int fields that weren't of the
On 09/08/2014 10:56 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 19:30 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
On 09/08/2014 01:50 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
But additionally, even if gcc combines adjacent writes _that are part
of the program flow_ then I believe the situation is no worse than
would
On 09/08/2014 06:47 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
On 09/08/2014 01:59 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 09/08/2014 10:52 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 08:41:52 -0700
H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 09/05/2014 08:31 AM, Peter Hurley wrote:
Which is a bit ironic because I
On 09/08/2014 03:17 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
I think the whole removing Alpha EV5 support is basically bonkers. Just
use set_bit in the tty layer. Alpha will continue to work as well as it
always has done and you won't design out support for any future processor
that turns out not to do
Add a short member for proper alignment and one will probably pop out.
Sent from my tablet, pardon any formatting problems.
> On Sep 8, 2014, at 19:56, James Bottomley
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 19:30 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
>> On 09/08/2014 01:50 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
On 09/08/2014 07:56 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, the extra requirement I added is basically nonsense, since the
>> only issue is what instructions the compiler is emitting. So if compiler
>> thinks the alignment is natural and combines the writes -- ok. If the
>> compiler thinks the
On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 19:30 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 09/08/2014 01:50 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> >> Two things: I think that gcc has given up on combining adjacent writes,
> >> perhaps because unaligned writes on some arches are prohibitive, so
> >> whatever minor optimization was
On 09/08/2014 03:39 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> I don't understand what you mean by "pass each other". Atomicity
> guarantees are not ordering guarantees in a SMP environment. The
> guarantee is that if you follow the rules when two CPUs update the same
> natural width aligned object
On 09/08/2014 03:43 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> This was years ago (possibly decades). We had to implement in-kernel
> unaligned traps for the networking layer because it could access short
> and int fields that weren't of the correct alignment when processing
> packets. It that's all
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 06:47:35PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 09/08/2014 01:59 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 09/08/2014 10:52 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 08:41:52 -0700
> >> "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 09/05/2014 08:31 AM, Peter Hurley wrote:
>
>
On 09/08/2014 01:50 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 16:41 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
>> On 09/07/2014 03:04 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 09:21 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 10:07:22PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On
On 09/08/2014 01:59 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 09/08/2014 10:52 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 08:41:52 -0700
>> "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/05/2014 08:31 AM, Peter Hurley wrote:
Which is a bit ironic because I remember when Digital had a team
On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 16:45 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 9/8/2014 1:50 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Actual alignment is pretty irrelevant. That's why all architectures
> > which require alignment also have to implement misaligned traps ... this
> > is a fundamental requirement of the
On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 12:12 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 09/08/2014 12:09 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> >
> > Um, I think you need to re-read the thread; that's not what I said at
> > all. It's even written lower down: "PA can't do atomic bit sets (no
> > atomic RMW except the ldcw operation)
On 9/8/2014 1:50 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
Actual alignment is pretty irrelevant. That's why all architectures
which require alignment also have to implement misaligned traps ... this
is a fundamental requirement of the networking code, for instance.
Can you clarify what you think the
On 09/08/2014 12:09 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> Um, I think you need to re-read the thread; that's not what I said at
> all. It's even written lower down: "PA can't do atomic bit sets (no
> atomic RMW except the ldcw operation) it can do atomic writes to
> fundamental sizes (byte, short, int,
> > I think the whole "removing Alpha EV5" support is basically bonkers. Just
> > use set_bit in the tty layer. Alpha will continue to work as well as it
> > always has done and you won't design out support for any future processor
> > that turns out not to do byte aligned stores.
> >
> > Alan
>
On 09/08/2014 12:09 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> Um, I think you need to re-read the thread; that's not what I said at
> all. It's even written lower down: "PA can't do atomic bit sets (no
> atomic RMW except the ldcw operation) it can do atomic writes to
> fundamental sizes (byte, short, int,
On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 11:12 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 09/07/2014 10:56 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 16:39 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> How many PARISC systems do we have that actually do real work on Linux?
> >
> > I'd be very surprised if this problem didn't
On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 18:52 +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 08:41:52 -0700
> "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
>
> > On 09/05/2014 08:31 AM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> > >
> > > Which is a bit ironic because I remember when Digital had a team
> > > working on emulating native x86 apps
On 09/07/2014 10:56 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 16:39 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> How many PARISC systems do we have that actually do real work on Linux?
>
> I'd be very surprised if this problem didn't exist on all alignment
> requiring architectures, like PPC and
On 09/08/2014 10:52 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 08:41:52 -0700
> "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
>
>> On 09/05/2014 08:31 AM, Peter Hurley wrote:
>>>
>>> Which is a bit ironic because I remember when Digital had a team
>>> working on emulating native x86 apps on Alpha/NT.
>>>
>>
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 08:41:52 -0700
"H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
> On 09/05/2014 08:31 AM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> >
> > Which is a bit ironic because I remember when Digital had a team
> > working on emulating native x86 apps on Alpha/NT.
> >
>
> Right, because the x86 architecture was obsolete and
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 08:41:52 -0700
H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 09/05/2014 08:31 AM, Peter Hurley wrote:
Which is a bit ironic because I remember when Digital had a team
working on emulating native x86 apps on Alpha/NT.
Right, because the x86 architecture was obsolete and
On 09/08/2014 10:52 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 08:41:52 -0700
H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 09/05/2014 08:31 AM, Peter Hurley wrote:
Which is a bit ironic because I remember when Digital had a team
working on emulating native x86 apps on Alpha/NT.
On 09/07/2014 10:56 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 16:39 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
How many PARISC systems do we have that actually do real work on Linux?
I'd be very surprised if this problem didn't exist on all alignment
requiring architectures, like PPC and Sparc as
On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 18:52 +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 08:41:52 -0700
H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 09/05/2014 08:31 AM, Peter Hurley wrote:
Which is a bit ironic because I remember when Digital had a team
working on emulating native x86 apps on
On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 11:12 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 09/07/2014 10:56 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 16:39 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
How many PARISC systems do we have that actually do real work on Linux?
I'd be very surprised if this problem didn't exist on
On 09/08/2014 12:09 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
Um, I think you need to re-read the thread; that's not what I said at
all. It's even written lower down: PA can't do atomic bit sets (no
atomic RMW except the ldcw operation) it can do atomic writes to
fundamental sizes (byte, short, int, long)
I think the whole removing Alpha EV5 support is basically bonkers. Just
use set_bit in the tty layer. Alpha will continue to work as well as it
always has done and you won't design out support for any future processor
that turns out not to do byte aligned stores.
Alan
Is *that*
On 09/08/2014 12:09 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
Um, I think you need to re-read the thread; that's not what I said at
all. It's even written lower down: PA can't do atomic bit sets (no
atomic RMW except the ldcw operation) it can do atomic writes to
fundamental sizes (byte, short, int, long)
On 9/8/2014 1:50 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
Actual alignment is pretty irrelevant. That's why all architectures
which require alignment also have to implement misaligned traps ... this
is a fundamental requirement of the networking code, for instance.
Can you clarify what you think the
On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 12:12 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 09/08/2014 12:09 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
Um, I think you need to re-read the thread; that's not what I said at
all. It's even written lower down: PA can't do atomic bit sets (no
atomic RMW except the ldcw operation) it can do
On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 16:45 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
On 9/8/2014 1:50 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
Actual alignment is pretty irrelevant. That's why all architectures
which require alignment also have to implement misaligned traps ... this
is a fundamental requirement of the networking
On 09/08/2014 01:59 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 09/08/2014 10:52 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 08:41:52 -0700
H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 09/05/2014 08:31 AM, Peter Hurley wrote:
Which is a bit ironic because I remember when Digital had a team
working on
On 09/08/2014 01:50 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 16:41 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
On 09/07/2014 03:04 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 09:21 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 10:07:22PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2014-09-04
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 06:47:35PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
On 09/08/2014 01:59 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 09/08/2014 10:52 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 08:41:52 -0700
H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 09/05/2014 08:31 AM, Peter Hurley wrote:
Which is
On 09/08/2014 03:43 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
This was years ago (possibly decades). We had to implement in-kernel
unaligned traps for the networking layer because it could access short
and int fields that weren't of the correct alignment when processing
packets. It that's all corrected
On 09/08/2014 03:39 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
I don't understand what you mean by pass each other. Atomicity
guarantees are not ordering guarantees in a SMP environment. The
guarantee is that if you follow the rules when two CPUs update the same
natural width aligned object simultaneously
On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 19:30 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
On 09/08/2014 01:50 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
Two things: I think that gcc has given up on combining adjacent writes,
perhaps because unaligned writes on some arches are prohibitive, so
whatever minor optimization was believed to be
On 09/08/2014 07:56 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
Yeah, the extra requirement I added is basically nonsense, since the
only issue is what instructions the compiler is emitting. So if compiler
thinks the alignment is natural and combines the writes -- ok. If the
compiler thinks the alignment is
Add a short member for proper alignment and one will probably pop out.
Sent from my tablet, pardon any formatting problems.
On Sep 8, 2014, at 19:56, James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 19:30 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
On 09/08/2014 01:50 AM,
On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 16:39 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> How many PARISC systems do we have that actually do real work on Linux?
I'd be very surprised if this problem didn't exist on all alignment
requiring architectures, like PPC and Sparc as well. I know it would be
very convenient if all
On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 16:41 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 09/07/2014 03:04 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 09:21 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 10:07:22PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 21:06 -0700, Paul E. McKenney
How many PARISC systems do we have that actually do real work on Linux?
On September 7, 2014 4:36:55 PM PDT, "Paul E. McKenney"
wrote:
>On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 04:17:30PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> I'm confused why storing 0x0102 would be a problem. I think gcc does
>that even on other
On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 04:17:30PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> I'm confused why storing 0x0102 would be a problem. I think gcc does that
> even on other cpus.
>
> More atomicity can't hurt, can it?
I must defer to James for any additional details on why PARISC systems
don't provide
I'm confused why storing 0x0102 would be a problem. I think gcc does that even
on other cpus.
More atomicity can't hurt, can it?
On September 7, 2014 4:00:19 PM PDT, "Paul E. McKenney"
wrote:
>On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 12:04:47PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
>> On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 09:21
On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 12:04:47PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 09:21 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 10:07:22PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 21:06 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at
On 09/07/2014 03:04 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 09:21 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 10:07:22PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 21:06 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:47:24PM -0400, Peter Hurley
On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 09:21 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 10:07:22PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 21:06 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:47:24PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> > > > Hi James,
> > > >
> > > > On
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 10:07:22PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 21:06 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:47:24PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> > > Hi James,
> > >
> > > On 09/04/2014 10:11 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2014-09-04 at
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 10:07:22PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 21:06 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:47:24PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
Hi James,
On 09/04/2014 10:11 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 17:17 -0700,
On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 09:21 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 10:07:22PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 21:06 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:47:24PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
Hi James,
On 09/04/2014 10:11 PM,
On 09/07/2014 03:04 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 09:21 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 10:07:22PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 21:06 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:47:24PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 12:04:47PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 09:21 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 10:07:22PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 21:06 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:47:24PM
I'm confused why storing 0x0102 would be a problem. I think gcc does that even
on other cpus.
More atomicity can't hurt, can it?
On September 7, 2014 4:00:19 PM PDT, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 12:04:47PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
On Sun,
On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 04:17:30PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
I'm confused why storing 0x0102 would be a problem. I think gcc does that
even on other cpus.
More atomicity can't hurt, can it?
I must defer to James for any additional details on why PARISC systems
don't provide atomicity
How many PARISC systems do we have that actually do real work on Linux?
On September 7, 2014 4:36:55 PM PDT, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 04:17:30PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
I'm confused why storing 0x0102 would be a problem. I think gcc does
On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 16:41 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
On 09/07/2014 03:04 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 09:21 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 10:07:22PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 21:06 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On
On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 16:39 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
How many PARISC systems do we have that actually do real work on Linux?
I'd be very surprised if this problem didn't exist on all alignment
requiring architectures, like PPC and Sparc as well. I know it would be
very convenient if all the
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 21:06 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:47:24PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> > Hi James,
> >
> > On 09/04/2014 10:11 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 17:17 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >> +And there are anti-guarantees:
>
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 21:06 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:47:24PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
Hi James,
On 09/04/2014 10:11 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 17:17 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
+And there are anti-guarantees:
+
+ (*)
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 05:12:28PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 09/05/2014 04:39 PM, Michael Cree wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 04:14:48PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> >> Second, in the body of the document:
> >>
> >> "The Linux kernel no longer supports pre-EV56 Alpha CPUs, because these
On 09/05/2014 04:39 PM, Michael Cree wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 04:14:48PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
>> Second, in the body of the document:
>>
>> "The Linux kernel no longer supports pre-EV56 Alpha CPUs, because these
>> older CPUs _do not provide_ atomic one-byte and two-byte loads and
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 10:48:34PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 01:34:52PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > On 09/05/2014 01:14 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here's how I read the two statements.
> > > >
> > >
On Fri, 5 Sep 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 01:34:52PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 09/05/2014 01:14 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> > >
> > > Here's how I read the two statements.
> > >
> > > First, the commit message:
> > >
> > > "It [this commit] documents that
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 01:34:52PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 09/05/2014 01:14 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> >
> > Here's how I read the two statements.
> >
> > First, the commit message:
> >
> > "It [this commit] documents that CPUs [supported by the Linux kernel]
> > _must provide_ atomic
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 01:34:52PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 09/05/2014 01:14 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> >
> > Here's how I read the two statements.
> >
> > First, the commit message:
> >
> > "It [this commit] documents that CPUs [supported by the Linux kernel]
> > _must provide_ atomic
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 04:14:48PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 09/05/2014 03:38 PM, Marc Gauthier wrote:
> > Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 02:50:31PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> >>> On 09/05/2014 02:09 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> This commit documents the fact
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 04:14:48PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> Second, in the body of the document:
>
> "The Linux kernel no longer supports pre-EV56 Alpha CPUs, because these
> older CPUs _do not provide_ atomic one-byte and two-byte loads and stores."
Let's be clear here, the pre-EV56 Alpha
1 - 100 of 206 matches
Mail list logo
