From: Joyce Kong <Joyce.Kong@arm.com>
To: "david.marchand@redhat.com" <david.marchand@redhat.com>
Cc: "thomas@monjalon.net" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>,
Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"stephen@networkplumber.org" <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
"olivier.matz@6wind.com" <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
"andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru" <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>,
"harry.van.haaren@intel.com" <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>,
Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>,
"techboard@dpdk.org" <techboard@dpdk.org>, nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/8] use GCC's C11 atomic builtins for test
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 07:28:19 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AS8PR08MB6935A381618F164F717BA72292149@AS8PR08MB6935.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DBAPR08MB5814283F24764E20239179EB98019@DBAPR08MB5814.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Hi David,
Since we have some discussion about the atomic operations now, I changed the commit message from "C11 atomics"(which has been widely used in previous commit) to "GCC atomic built-ins".
What's your opinion about whether keeping the previous message for the consistency or using the new description?
Joyce
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 6:41 AM
> To: Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>
> Cc: thomas@monjalon.net; Joyce Kong <Joyce.Kong@arm.com>;
> dev@dpdk.org; david.marchand@redhat.com;
> stephen@networkplumber.org; olivier.matz@6wind.com;
> andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru; harry.van.haaren@intel.com; Ruifeng
> Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>; techboard@dpdk.org;
> nd <nd@arm.com>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/8] use GCC's C11 atomic builtins for test
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As I mentioned earlier in this thread, GCC supports 2 types of
> > > > > atomics. "Use GCC atomic builtins" does not help distinguish
> > > > > between them. In "GCC's C11 atomic builtins" - "C11" indicates
> > > > > which atomics we are using, "atomic builtins" indicates that we
> > > > > are NOT using APIs from stdatomic.h
> > > >
> > > > if you need a term to distinguish the two sets of atomics in gcc
> > > > you can qualify it with "Memory Model Aware" which is straight
> > > > from the gcc
> > manual.
> > > "Memory model aware" sounds too generic. The same page [1] also
> > > makes
> > it clear that the built-in functions match the requirements for the
> > C11 memory model.
> >
> > allow me to put your interpretation of the manual that you linked side
> > by side with what the manual text actually says verbatim.
> >
> > your text from above
> > "built-in functions match the requirements for the C11 memory model."
> >
> > the actual text from your link
> > "built-in functions approximately match the requirements for the
> > C++11 memory model."
> >
> > * you've chosen to drop approximately from the wording to try and make
> > your argument.
> I am not sure how this makes a difference to our arguments. For ex: there
> are no other built in functions that "exactly" match the C++11 memory model
> supported by GCC.
>
> >
> > * you've also chosen to substitute C11 in place of C++11. again
> > presumably for the same reason.
> >
> > in fact the entire page does not mention C11 even once, it also goes
> > on to highlight a specific deviation from C++11 with this excerpt
> > "because of a deficiency in C++11's semantics for
> memory_order_consume"
> I do not have a problem to call it C++11. IMO, calling it "GCC's C++11 ..." will
> address this deviation and the approximation.
>
> >
> > > There are also several patches merged in the past which do not use
> > > the term
> > "memory model aware". I would prefer to be consistent.
> >
> > i prefer the history represent the change. that previous submitters
> > and reviewers lacked precision is not my concern nor is consistency a
> > reason to continue documenting history incorrectly.
> Ok. As I mentioned, it is just my preference.
>
> >
> > i'm waiting to ack the change, it's up to you. you've already spent
> > more time arguing than it would have taken to submit a v2 correcting the
> problem.
> I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. You are trying to correct few
> mistakes here (I truly appreciate that) and I am trying to explain my POV and
> making corrections as needed. I am sure we will conclude soon.
>
> >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/_005f_005fatomic-Builtins.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-13 7:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-04 9:46 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 " Joyce Kong
2021-06-04 9:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/8] test/ticketlock: use GCC atomic builtins for lcores sync Joyce Kong
2021-06-04 9:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 2/8] test/spinlock: " Joyce Kong
2021-06-04 9:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 3/8] test/rwlock: " Joyce Kong
2021-06-04 9:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 4/8] test/mcslock: " Joyce Kong
2021-06-04 9:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 5/8] test/mempool: remove unused variable " Joyce Kong
2021-06-04 9:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 6/8] test/mempool_perf: use GCC atomic builtins " Joyce Kong
2021-06-04 9:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 7/8] test/service_cores: use GCC atomic builtins for lock sync Joyce Kong
2021-06-04 9:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 8/8] test/rcu_perf: use GCC atomic builtins for data sync Joyce Kong
2021-06-04 19:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 0/8] use GCC's C11 atomic builtins for test Stephen Hemminger
2021-06-11 8:40 ` David Marchand
2021-06-11 10:45 ` Joyce Kong
2021-06-16 2:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 " Joyce Kong
2021-06-16 2:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/8] test/ticketlock: use GCC atomic builtins for lcores sync Joyce Kong
2021-06-16 2:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/8] test/spinlock: " Joyce Kong
2021-06-16 2:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/8] test/rwlock: " Joyce Kong
2021-06-16 2:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/8] test/mcslock: " Joyce Kong
2021-06-16 2:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/8] test/mempool: remove unused variable " Joyce Kong
2021-06-16 2:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 6/8] test/mempool_perf: use GCC atomic builtins " Joyce Kong
2021-06-16 2:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 7/8] test/service_cores: use GCC atomic builtins for lock sync Joyce Kong
2021-06-16 2:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 8/8] test/rcu: use GCC atomic builtins for data sync Joyce Kong
2021-06-17 15:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/8] use GCC's C11 atomic builtins for test Tyler Retzlaff
2021-06-17 23:26 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2021-06-23 10:24 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-06-23 16:02 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2021-06-29 17:04 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2021-06-30 18:51 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2021-06-30 19:06 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2021-06-30 19:38 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2021-06-30 20:25 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2021-06-30 21:49 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2021-06-30 22:41 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2021-07-13 7:28 ` Joyce Kong [this message]
2021-07-14 11:44 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-07-20 3:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/8] use compiler " Joyce Kong
2021-07-20 3:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/8] test/ticketlock: use compiler atomics for lcores sync Joyce Kong
2021-07-20 3:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/8] test/spinlock: use compile " Joyce Kong
2021-07-20 3:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/8] test/rwlock: use compiler " Joyce Kong
2021-07-20 3:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/8] test/mcslock: " Joyce Kong
2021-07-28 9:56 ` Olivier Matz
2021-07-29 7:19 ` Joyce Kong
2021-07-29 7:58 ` Olivier Matz
2021-07-20 3:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 5/8] test/mempool: remove unused variable " Joyce Kong
2021-07-20 3:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/8] test/mempool_perf: use compiler atomics " Joyce Kong
2021-07-20 3:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 7/8] test/service_cores: use compiler atomics for lock sync Joyce Kong
2021-07-20 3:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 8/8] test/rcu: use compiler atomics for data sync Joyce Kong
2021-07-23 19:52 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2021-07-28 7:07 ` Joyce Kong
2021-07-30 21:58 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/8] use compiler atomic builtins for test Thomas Monjalon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=AS8PR08MB6935A381618F164F717BA72292149@AS8PR08MB6935.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com \
--to=joyce.kong@arm.com \
--cc=Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com \
--cc=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=harry.van.haaren@intel.com \
--cc=nd@arm.com \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=roretzla@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=techboard@dpdk.org \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).