On 2017/07/24 14:34:07 +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 09:04:57AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> [...]
>>>
>>> ->8
>>> Subject: [PATCH] kernel: Emphasize the return value of READ_ONCE() is
>>> honored
>>>
>>> READ_ONCE() is used around in kernel to provide a cont
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 09:04:57AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
[...]
> >
> > ->8
> > Subject: [PATCH] kernel: Emphasize the return value of READ_ONCE() is
> > honored
> >
> > READ_ONCE() is used around in kernel to provide a control dependency,
> > and to make the control depend
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 09:04:57AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> On 2017/07/23 23:39:36 +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 09:43:00PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> Your priority seemed to be in reducing the chance of the "if" statement
> >>> to be optimized away.
On 2017/07/23 23:39:36 +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 09:43:00PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [...]
>>> Your priority seemed to be in reducing the chance of the "if" statement
>>> to be optimized away. So I suggested to use "extern" as a compromise.
>>
>
> Hi Akira,
>
Hi
On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 09:43:00PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[...]
> > Your priority seemed to be in reducing the chance of the "if" statement
> > to be optimized away. So I suggested to use "extern" as a compromise.
>
Hi Akira,
The problem is that, such a compromise doesn't help *develope
On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 08:38:57AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> On 2017/07/20 16:07:14 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 07:52:03AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> >> On 2017/07/20 14:42:34 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [...]
> >>> For the compilers I know about at the
On 2017/07/20 16:07:14 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 07:52:03AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
>> On 2017/07/20 14:42:34 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[...]
>>> For the compilers I know about at the present time, yes.
>>
>> So if I respin the patch with the extern, would y
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 08:24:40AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 04:07:14PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [...]
> > >
> > > So if I respin the patch with the extern, would you still feel reluctant?
> >
> > Yes, because I am not seeing how this change helps. What is this t
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 04:07:14PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[...]
> >
> > So if I respin the patch with the extern, would you still feel reluctant?
>
> Yes, because I am not seeing how this change helps. What is this telling
> the reader that the original did not, and how does it help the
gt;>>>>>>> >From b798b9b631e237d285aa8699da00bfb8ced33bea Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
> >>>>>>>>>> >2001
> >>>>>>>>>> From: Akira Yokosawa
> >>>>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:25
gt;>>>>>> On 2017/07/20 2:43, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 05:24:42PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >From b798b9b631e237d285aa8699da00bfb8ced33bea Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
>
gt;>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 05:24:42PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> >>>>>>>> >From b798b9b631e237d285aa8699da00bfb8ced33bea Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
> >>>>>>>> >2001
> >>>>>>>> From: Akira Yo
t;>>>>> >From b798b9b631e237d285aa8699da00bfb8ced33bea Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>>>>>> From: Akira Yokosawa
>>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:25:33 +0900
>>>>>>>> Subject: [PATCH] documentation: Fix tw
0:00 2001
> >>>>>> From: Akira Yokosawa
> >>>>>> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:25:33 +0900
> >>>>>> Subject: [PATCH] documentation: Fix two-CPU control-dependency example
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
0 2:43, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 05:24:42PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
>>>>>> >From b798b9b631e237d285aa8699da00bfb8ced33bea Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>>>> From: Akira Yokosawa
>>>>>> Date: Mon, 17
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 02:14:34PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:47:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [...]
> > > Hi Paul,
> > >
> > > I know the compiler could optimize atomics in very interesting ways, but
> > > this case is about volatile, so I guess our case is stil
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:47:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[...]
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > I know the compiler could optimize atomics in very interesting ways, but
> > this case is about volatile, so I guess our case is still fine? ;-)
>
> Hello, Boqun,
>
> When I asked that question, the answ
l 17, 2017 at 05:24:42PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> > > >> >From b798b9b631e237d285aa8699da00bfb8ced33bea Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > >> From: Akira Yokosawa
> > > >> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:25:33 +0900
> > > >> Subject: [PATCH] d
rote:
> > >> >From b798b9b631e237d285aa8699da00bfb8ced33bea Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > >> From: Akira Yokosawa
> > >> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:25:33 +0900
> > >> Subject: [PATCH] documentation: Fix two-CPU control-dependency example
> > >>
> > >> In comm
Akira Yokosawa
> >> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:25:33 +0900
> >> Subject: [PATCH] documentation: Fix two-CPU control-dependency example
> >>
> >> In commit 5646f7acc95f ("memory-barriers: Fix control-ordering
> >> no-transitivity example"),
On 2017/07/20 2:43, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 05:24:42PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
>> >From b798b9b631e237d285aa8699da00bfb8ced33bea Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Akira Yokosawa
>> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:25:33 +0900
>> Subject: [PAT
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 05:24:42PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> >From b798b9b631e237d285aa8699da00bfb8ced33bea Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Akira Yokosawa
> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:25:33 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] documentation: Fix two-CPU control-dependency example
>From b798b9b631e237d285aa8699da00bfb8ced33bea Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Akira Yokosawa
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:25:33 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] documentation: Fix two-CPU control-dependency example
In commit 5646f7acc95f ("memory-barriers: Fix control-ordering
no-transitivity exampl
23 matches
Mail list logo
