Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework

[Jeff Law]

On 02/25/14 17:15, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > I have for the last several years been 100% convinced that the Intel
> > memory ordering is the right thing, and that people who like weak
> > memory ordering are wrong and should try to avoid reproducing if at
> > all possible. But given that we have memory orderings like power and
> > ARM, I don't actually see a sane way to get a good strong ordering.
> > You can teach compilers about cases like the above when they actually
> > see all the code and they could poison the value chain etc. But it
> > would be fairly painful, and once you cross object files (or even just
> > functions in the same compilation unit, for that matter), it goes from
> > painful to just "ridiculously not worth it".
>
> And I have indeed seen a post or two from you favoring stronger memory
> ordering over the past few years.  ;-)
I couldn't agree more.

> Are ARM and Power really the bad boys here?  Or are they instead playing
> the role of the canary in the coal mine?
That's a question I've been struggling with recently as well.  I suspect 
they (arm, power) are going to be the outliers rather than the canary. 
While the weaker model may give them some advantages WRT scalability, I 
don't think it'll ultimately be enough to overcome the difficulty in 
writing correct low level code for them.

Regardless, they're here and we have to deal with them.


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