From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 10:42:41 -0800 Message-ID: <20140206184241.GF4250@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20140206134825.305510953@infradead.org> <21984.1391711149@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <21984.1391711149@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: David Howells Cc: Peter Zijlstra , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@kernel.org, will.deacon@arm.com, ramana.radhakrishnan@arm.com List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:25:49PM +0000, David Howells wrote: > > Is it worth considering a move towards using C11 atomics and barriers and > compiler intrinsics inside the kernel? The compiler _ought_ to be able to do > these. Makes sense to me! > One thing I'm not sure of, though, is how well gcc's atomics will cope with > interrupt handlers touching atomics on CPUs without suitable atomic > instructions - that said, userspace does have to deal with signals getting > underfoot. but then userspace can't normally disable interrupts. Perhaps make the C11 definitions so that any arch can override any specific definition? Thanx, Paul