From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: torvalds@linux-foundation.org (Linus Torvalds)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:13:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ltt-dev] [RFC git tree] Userspace RCU (urcu) for Linux (repost)
In-Reply-To: <20090212200249.GG6759@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20090211185203.GA29852@Krystal>
	<20090211200903.GG6694@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<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>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902121210120.3099@localhost.localdomain>



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.

		Linus