Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework

[Torvald Riegel]

On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 18:59 +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2014, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> 
> > glibc is a counterexample that comes to mind, although it's a smaller
> > code base.  (It's currently not using C11 atomics, but transitioning
> > there makes sense, and some thing I want to get to eventually.)
> 
> glibc is using C11 atomics (GCC builtins rather than _Atomic / 
> <stdatomic.h>, but using __atomic_* with explicitly specified memory model 
> rather than the older __sync_*) on AArch64, plus in certain cases on ARM 
> and MIPS.

I think the major steps remaining is moving the other architectures
over, and rechecking concurrent code (e.g., for the code that I have
seen, it was either asm variants (eg, on x86), or built before C11; ARM
pthread_once was lacking memory_barriers (see "pthread_once unification"
patches I posted)).  We also need/should to move towards using
relaxed-MO atomic loads instead of plain loads.



--
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/