On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 08:24:27PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > Yes ... but that still leaves this weird feeling that it's really > still a bit wrong because it's not proper parallel code, we just > reduced the probability of the remaining races radically. And it's not > like GCC (or any compiler) does load tearing or even store tearing > under normal -O2 for such code patterns, right?
I think Paul once caught GCC doing something silly, but typically no. The re-loads however have been frequently observed. > > And its not like they really cost anything. > > That's true. > > Would it make sense to add a few comments to the seq field definition > site(s), about how it's supposed to be accessed - or to the > READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() sites, to keep people from wondering? For sure, can do a comment no problem. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
