On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 11:03:01AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 07:13:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:09:09AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:24:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > I must say I'm somewhat surprised by this level of relaxation, I had > > > > expected to only loose SMP barriers, not the program order ones. > > > > > > > > Is there a good argument for this? > > > > > > Yes, when we say "relaxed", we really mean relaxed. ;-) > > > > > > Both the CPU and the compiler are allowed to reorder around relaxed > > > operations. > > > > Is this documented somewhere, because I completely missed this part. > > Well, yes, these need to be added to the documentation. I am assuming > that Will is looking to have the same effect as C11 memory_order_relaxed, > which is relaxed in this sense. If he has something else in mind, > he needs to tell us what it is and why. ;-)
I suspect he is; but I'm not _that_ up to date on the whole C11 stuff. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
