Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Right. ROTFL... volatile actually breaks atomic_t instead of making it safe. x++ becomes a register load, increment and a register store. Without volatile we can increment the memory directly. It seems that volatile requires that the variable is loaded into a register first and then operated upon. Understandable when you think about volatile being used to access memory mapped I/O registers where a RMW operation could be problematic.

So, if we want consistent behavior, we're pretty much screwed unless we use inline assembler everywhere?

Nah, this whole argument is flawed -- "without volatile" we still
*cannot* "increment the memory directly".  On x86, you need a lock
prefix; on other archs, some other mechanism to make the memory
increment an *atomic* memory increment.

And no, RMW on MMIO isn't "problematic" at all, either.

An RMW op is a read op, a modify op, and a write op, all rolled
into one opcode.  But three actual operations.


The advantages of asm code for atomic_{read,set} are:
1) all the other atomic ops are implemented that way already;
2) you have full control over the asm insns selected, in particular,
   you can guarantee you *do* get an atomic op;
3) you don't need to use "volatile <data>" which generates
   not-all-that-good code on archs like x86, and we want to get rid
   of it anyway since it is problematic in many ways;
4) you don't need to use *(volatile <type>*)&<data>, which a) doesn't
   exist in C; b) isn't documented or supported in GCC; c) has a recent
   history of bugginess; d) _still uses volatile objects_; e) _still_
   is problematic in almost all those same ways as in 3);
5) you can mix atomic and non-atomic accesses to the atomic_t, which
   you cannot with the other alternatives.

The only disadvantage I know of is potentially slightly worse
instruction scheduling.  This is a generic asm() problem: GCC
cannot see what actual insns are inside the asm() block.


Segher

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

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux