- On Apr 19, 2021, at 11:41 AM, Duncan Sands baldr...@free.fr wrote:
> Hi Mathieu,
>
> On 4/19/21 5:31 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> - On Apr 19, 2021, at 5:41 AM, Duncan Sands baldr...@free.fr wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
Quick question: should we use __atomic_load() or
Hi Mathieu,
On 4/19/21 5:31 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
- On Apr 19, 2021, at 5:41 AM, Duncan Sands baldr...@free.fr wrote:
Quick question: should we use __atomic_load() or atomic_load_explicit() (C) and
(std::atomic<__typeof__(x)>)(x)).load() (C++) ?
If both are available, is there
- On Apr 19, 2021, at 5:41 AM, Duncan Sands baldr...@free.fr wrote:
>
>> Quick question: should we use __atomic_load() or atomic_load_explicit() (C)
>> and
>> (std::atomic<__typeof__(x)>)(x)).load() (C++) ?
>
> If both are available, is there any advantage to using the C++ version when
>
- On Apr 16, 2021, at 11:22 AM, lttng-dev lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org wrote:
> Hi Mathieu,
>
Hi Duncan,
> On 4/16/21 4:52 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev wrote:
>> Hi Paul, Will, Peter,
>>
>> I noticed in this discussion https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/4/16/118 that LTO
>> is able to break
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 03:30:53PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> - On Apr 16, 2021, at 3:02 PM, paulmck paul...@kernel.org wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > If it can be done reasonably, I suggest also having some way for the
> > person building userspace RCU to say "I know what I am doing, so do
>
- On Apr 16, 2021, at 3:02 PM, paulmck paul...@kernel.org wrote:
[...]
>
> If it can be done reasonably, I suggest also having some way for the
> person building userspace RCU to say "I know what I am doing, so do
> it with volatile rather than memory_order_consume."
Like so ?
#define
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 02:40:08PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> - On Apr 16, 2021, at 12:01 PM, paulmck paul...@kernel.org wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 05:17:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 10:52:16AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >> > Hi Paul,
- On Apr 16, 2021, at 12:01 PM, paulmck paul...@kernel.org wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 05:17:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 10:52:16AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> > Hi Paul, Will, Peter,
>> >
>> > I noticed in this discussion
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 05:17:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 10:52:16AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > Hi Paul, Will, Peter,
> >
> > I noticed in this discussion https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/4/16/118 that LTO
> > is able to break rcu_dereference. This seems to be
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 10:52:16AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Hi Paul, Will, Peter,
>
> I noticed in this discussion https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/4/16/118 that LTO
> is able to break rcu_dereference. This seems to be taken care of by
> arch/arm64/include/asm/rwonce.h on arm64 in the Linux
Hi Mathieu,
On 4/16/21 4:52 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev wrote:
Hi Paul, Will, Peter,
I noticed in this discussion https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/4/16/118 that LTO
is able to break rcu_dereference. This seems to be taken care of by
arch/arm64/include/asm/rwonce.h on arm64 in the Linux
Hi Paul, Will, Peter,
I noticed in this discussion https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/4/16/118 that LTO
is able to break rcu_dereference. This seems to be taken care of by
arch/arm64/include/asm/rwonce.h on arm64 in the Linux kernel tree.
In the liburcu user-space library, we have this comment near
12 matches
Mail list logo
