On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:23:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 11:03:01AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 07:13:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:09:09AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:24:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I must say I'm somewhat surprised by this level of relaxation, I had
> > > > > expected to only loose SMP barriers, not the program order ones.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there a good argument for this?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, when we say "relaxed", we really mean relaxed. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Both the CPU and the compiler are allowed to reorder around relaxed
> > > > operations.
> > >
> > > Is this documented somewhere, because I completely missed this part.
> >
> > Well, yes, these need to be added to the documentation. I am assuming
> > that Will is looking to have the same effect as C11 memory_order_relaxed,
> > which is relaxed in this sense. If he has something else in mind,
> > he needs to tell us what it is and why. ;-)
>
> I suspect he is; but I'm not _that_ up to date on the whole C11 stuff.
Lucky you! ;-)
Thanx, Paul
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
