From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Paul E. McKenney)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:39:24 -0800
Subject: [ltt-dev] [RFC git tree] Userspace RCU (urcu) for Linux	(repost)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902121210120.3099@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20090211214258.GA32407@Krystal>
	<20090212003549.GU6694@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20090212023308.GA21157@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20090212040824.GA12346@Krystal>
	<20090212050120.GA8317@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20090212070539.GA15896@Krystal>
	<20090212164621.GC6759@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20090212192941.GC2047@Krystal>
	<20090212200249.GG6759@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<alpine.LFD.2.00.0902121210120.3099@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <20090212203924.GK6759@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:13:29PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > 
> > Actually the best way to do this would be:
> > 
> > 	while (ACCESS_ONCE(sig_done) < 1)
> > 		continue;
> > 
> > If ACCESS_ONCE() needs to be made architecture-specific to make this
> > really work on Blackfin, we should make that change.
> 
> I really wouldn't want to mix up compiler barriers and cache barriers this 
> way. 
> 
> I think "cpu_relax()" is likely the right thing to piggy-back on for 
> broken cache-coherency.
> 
> > And, now that you mention it, I have heard rumors that other CPU 
> > families can violate cache coherence in some circumstances.
> 
> I personally suspect that the BF pseudo-SMP code is just broken, and that 
> it likely has tons of subtle bugs and races - because we _do_ depend on 
> cache coherency at least for accessing objects next to each other. I just 
> never personally felt like I had the energy to care deeply enough.
> 
> But I draw the line at making ACCESS_ONCE() imply anything but a compiler 
> optimization issue.

In other words, you are arguing for using ACCESS_ONCE() in the loops,
but keeping the old ACCESS_ONCE() definition, and declaring BF hardware
broken?

I am OK with that, just wanting to make sure I understand what you are
asking us to do.

							Thanx, Paul