From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
dvyukov@google.com, peterz@infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] locking: Add volatile to arch_spinlock_t structures
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 23:02:48 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141204070248.GJ25340@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFxGCxQNE4HzRP_Uk2FmFDn_+Hfm6GBz75S+5+SDeODVJQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 10:40:45PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2014 10:31 PM, "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > So no, no, no. C got this wrong. Volatile data structures are a
> fundamental mistake and a bug.
>
> BTW, I'm not at all interested in language lawyering and people who say
> "but but we can do x". A compiler that modifies adjacent fields because the
> standard leaves is open is a crap compiler, and we won't use it, or disable
> the broken optimization. It is wrong from a concurrency standpoint anyway,
> and adding broken volatiles is just making things worse.
Understood, for example, adjacent fields protected by different locks
as one example, where adjacent-field overwriting completely breaks even
very conservatively designed code. Should be entertaining! ;-)
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-12-04 7:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-04 6:20 [PATCH RFC] locking: Add volatile to arch_spinlock_t structures Paul E. McKenney
[not found] ` <CA+55aFzn-6asfWHB8SAvz4GJWz7uEriujgVLfaqoo_VPtNBLuA@mail.gmail.com>
2014-12-04 6:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
[not found] ` <CA+55aFxGCxQNE4HzRP_Uk2FmFDn_+Hfm6GBz75S+5+SDeODVJQ@mail.gmail.com>
2014-12-04 7:02 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2014-12-04 18:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-12-04 18:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-12-04 18:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-12-04 19:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-12-04 20:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-12-04 20:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-12-04 21:45 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-12-04 22:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20141204070248.GJ25340@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox