Re: _proxy_pda still makes linking modules fail

[Paul Mackerras]

Jeremy Fitzhardinge writes:

> Or do you mean that if you have:
> 
> 	preempt_disable();
> 	use_my_percpu++;
> 	preempt_enable();
> 	// switch cpus
> 	preempt_disable();
> 	use_my_percpu++;
> 	preempt_enable();
> 
> then it will still use the old pointer to use_my_percpu?

Yes.  It can, and sometimes does.  There's no way (that I know of) to
tell gcc "all my __thread variables might have moved to a different
address".

> In principle gcc could CSE the value of smp_processor_id() across a cpu
> change in the same way.

There it's easier to make gcc do what we want, because we can use a
barrier or a volatile.  The difference is that smp_processor_id() is
ultimately the value of something, not the address of something.  We
can tell gcc "values might have changed" but have no way to say
"addresses might have changed".

Paul.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/