On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 01:02:48PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 12:57 +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> > Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2008-08-20 at 20:50 -0600, jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
> > > 
> > >>  volatiles left in the code due to the previously stated
> > >>  (and still present) severe breakage of the GNU compiler with SMP 
> > >>  shared data.  most of the barrier() functions are just plain broken
> > >>  and do not result in proper compiler behavior in this tree. 
> > > 
> > > Can you provide explicit detail?
> > > 
> > > By using barrier() the compiler should clobber all its memory and
> > > registers therefore forcing a write/reload of the variable.
> > 
> > I hope Jeff didn't try mere barrier()s only.  smp_wmb() and smp_rmb()
> > are the more relevant barrier variants for mdb, from what I remember
> > when I last looked at it.
> 
> Sure, but volatile isn't a replacement for memory barriers.

Let's face it, the C standard does not support concurrency, so we are
all in a state of sin in any case, forced to rely on combinations of
gcc-specific non-standard language extensions and assembly language.

Could be worse!!!

							Thanx, Paul
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/