This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: BZ 20822 :powerpc: race condition in __lll_unlock_elision
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- Cc: munroesj at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com, Rajalakshmi Srinivasaraghavan <raji at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, aaron Sawdey <acsawdey at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich dot Weigand at de dot ibm dot com>, Steve Munroe <sjmunroe at us dot ibm dot co>, carlos at redhat dot com, adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org, adconrad at ubuntu dot com, wschmidt at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 16:02:25 +0100
- Subject: Re: BZ 20822 :powerpc: race condition in __lll_unlock_elision
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1479771736.9880.42.camel@oc7878010663> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
On 11/22/2016 02:45 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
Lock elision relies on this kind of mixed access. While it would be
nice to have a common formal model for the various HTMs out there from
the perspective of a C11/C++11 memory model setting, I don't think it's
a big problem right now that we don't (AFAIK) have such a formal model.
Lock elision should be well understood, so I'm not worried about any
surprises regarding this use case.
You are the expert. I'm just surprised we embrace a wild-west approach
to P&C again, while trying to convince others to argue from the
definitions instead based on gut feeling.
That being said, I'm don't have a strong opinion regarding the style to
use in this case.