From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07A35919 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 13:42:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF210E2 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 13:42:26 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 15:42:23 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: David Woodhouse Message-ID: <20160802134223.GK6862@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <15500.1469183675@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <1469545881.120686.335.camel@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1469545881.120686.335.camel@infradead.org> Cc: jakub@redhat.com, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, ramana.radhakrishnan@arm.com Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] Memory model, using ISO C++11 atomic ops List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 04:11:21PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Fri, 2016-07-22 at 11:34 +0100, David Howells wrote: > > Further, Paul McKenney and others are assembling a memory model description. > > Do we want to consider loosening up the kernel memory model? > > It's not clear that 'loosening up' is what we're after. Linus (who should also very much be present for this) always argues against relaxing ordering.