[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:09:38 +0200
From: Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@...ia.fr>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: What's left for 1.1.11 release?
Hello,
Am Montag, den 27.07.2015, 23:40 -0400 schrieb Rich Felker:
> In principle the a_store issue affects all libc-internal __lock/LOCK
> uses,
so this worries me since I assumed that UNLOCK had release consistency
for the __atomic implementation.
> and stdio locks too, but it's only been observed in malloc.
> Since there don't seem to be any performance-relevant uses of a_store
> that don't actually need the proper barrier, I think we have to just
> put an explicit barrier (lock orl $0,(%esp) or mfence) after the store
> and live with the loss of performance.
How about using a xchg as instruction? This would perhaps "waste" a
register, but that sort of optimization should not be critical in the
vicinity of code that needs memory synchronization, anyhow.
Jens
--
:: INRIA Nancy Grand Est ::: Camus ::::::: ICube/ICPS :::
:: ::::::::::::::: office Strasbourg : +33 368854536 ::
:: :::::::::::::::::::::: gsm France : +33 651400183 ::
:: ::::::::::::::: gsm international : +49 15737185122 ::
:: http://icube-icps.unistra.fr/index.php/Jens_Gustedt ::
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
