Re: bit fields && data tearing

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 06:47:35PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 09/08/2014 01:59 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 09/08/2014 10:52 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 08:41:52 -0700
> >> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 09/05/2014 08:31 AM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Which is a bit ironic because I remember when Digital had a team
> >>>> working on emulating native x86 apps on Alpha/NT.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Right, because the x86 architecture was obsolete and would never scale...
> >>
> >> Talking about "not scaling" can anyone explain how a "you need to use
> >> set_bit() and friends" bug report scaled into a hundred message plus
> >> discussion about ambiguous properties of processors (and nobody has
> >> audited all the embedded platforms we support yet, or the weirder ARMs)
> >> and a propsal to remove Alpha support.
> >>
> >> Wouldn't it be *much* simpler to do what I suggested in the first place
> >> and use the existing intended for purpose, deliberately put there,
> >> functions for atomic bitops, because they are fast on sane processors and
> >> they work on everything else.
> >>
> >> I think the whole "removing Alpha EV5" support is basically bonkers. Just
> >> use set_bit in the tty layer. Alpha will continue to work as well as it
> >> always has done and you won't design out support for any future processor
> >> that turns out not to do byte aligned stores.
> >>
> >> Alan
> >>
> > 
> > Is *that* what we are talking about?  I was added to this conversation
> > in the middle where it had already generalized, so I had no idea.
> 
> No, this is just what brought this craziness to my attention.
> 
> For example, byte- and short-sized circular buffers could not possibly
> be safe either, when the head nears the tail.
> 
> Who has audited global storage and ensured that _every_ byte-sized write
> doesn't happen to be adjacent to some other storage that may not happen
> to be protected by the same (or any) lock?

This was my concern as well.

							Thanx, Paul