This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc 2.23 --- Starting soft/slush freeze
- From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>
- To: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Carlos O'Donell <codonell at redhat dot com>, David Miller <davem at davemloft dot net>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:36:02 -0200
- Subject: Re: glibc 2.23 --- Starting soft/slush freeze
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5694161C dot 1010200 at linaro dot org> <1452601558 dot 26597 dot 282 dot camel at localhost dot localdomain> <5694F34D dot 8070301 at linaro dot org> <1452610148 dot 26597 dot 309 dot camel at localhost dot localdomain>
On 12-01-2016 12:49, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-01-12 at 10:36 -0200, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>> On 12-01-2016 10:25, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2016-01-11 at 18:52 -0200, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> At stated in a previous message we are now in soft/slushy freeze mode.
>>>> Please do not commit new features other than the ones already reviewed.
>>>> If your new feature still needs review and was not listed in the releases
>>>> wiki as a blocker feature  it is unfortunately too late. Please defer
>>>> to glibc 2.23 when it opens.
>>> The barrier patch has been reviewed by Paul Murphy and tested by him on
>>> Power. Paul said he might prefer if someone else reviewed it too,
>>> though. Can this be considered reviewed then?
>> I will also check it on aarch64/arm today and I also would like to see it
>> on 2.23.
I saw no regression on aarch64 or arm (v8). I will do another check on armv7
by the end of the week, although I do not foresee any issue since armv8 is ok.
>> The only bit I am not sure is the sparc stated by you it might
>> broke on newer implementation. Do you think we can get sparc parts done
>> and tested by the end of the week?
> The only thing that makes sparc different is that pre-v9 sparc32 has no
> real support for atomics. The atomic operations we have are supported,
> but CAS or other read-modify-write operations are only atomic within a
> process (the hardware only has a test-and-set, so things need to be
> lock-based essentially).
> For all but pre-v9 sparc, I'd just use the new barrier implementation.
> For pre-v9 sparc, I could try to hack up a version that uses an internal
> lock for all the read-modify-write atomic ops used by the new barrier
> implementation. But I can't test this.
> Dave, could you take care of adapting to pre-v9 sparc?
Right, I also do not feel compelled on delay this feature due a very
specific architecture lacking of support. I recall Dave saying he only
build and test sparc near release date, so it will give him roughly a
month to either help adjust the code to pre-v9 sparc or help you with
testing. Any objections?
> It also feels like we might need a better process to handle such pre-v9
> sparc issues. It comes up whenever we change concurrent code that is
> supposed to work in a process-shared setting (it will come up for
> condvars again). Any suggestions?
> I think one relatively clean way to support pre-v9 sparc on
> process-shared was if we could set/unset a lock that is to be used for
> subsequently executed atomic operations. The set/unset would be a noop
> for all but pre-v9 sparc. On pre-v9 sparc, we could put this address
> into a thread-local variable, and have the atomic RMW ops check whether
> such a lock is set or not; if it is, it will be used instead of one of
> the 64 per-process locks used for non-process-shared atomics.
> This way, we probably wouldn't need custom pre-v9 sparc code anymore.
> Performance may be somewhat slower, but it will be slower anyway due to
> having to use a lock in the first place instead of using a comparatively
> light-weight native atomic operation.
This seems a reasonable approach, specially the part to get rid of custom
pre-v9 sparc code. I would also aim first on conformance and code simplicity
and thus later try on optimize this locking mechanism, if possible.
>>> Also, what about the list of desirable features? I had assumed they are
>>> candidates for late commits too but will, unlike blockers, not block the
>> I see only the new barrier and condvar implementation as the desirable
>> features on this release. From your previous messages I see that condvar
>> is still showing some issues with your internal tests, so I take we might
>> delay to 2.24 (correct me if I am wrong).
> I'm behind schedule on the condvar fix, but I could try to finish it
> this week too. Would this make the new condvar acceptable for 2.23?
> I don't want to rush this, but I worry about delaying to 2.24, still not
> getting any reviews, and being in the same position when the 2.24
> release comes around.
> Are there volunteers who would be willing and able to review the new
> condvar provided the fix gets posted upstream end of this week?
How confident are you about the condvar implementation? I recall you saying
you tested on Fedore Rawhide, but it leads to some issues. I would prefer
to not rush on 2.23 and work to get it done subsequent months after master
is open again (so we have plenty time of fix until next releases).