Chris Snook wrote:
That's why we define atomic_read like so: #define atomic_read(v) ((v)->counter)This avoids the aliasing problem, because the compiler must de-reference the pointer every time, which requires a memory fetch.
Can you guarantee that the pointer dereference cannot be optimised away on any architecture? Without other restrictions, a suficiently intelligent optimiser could notice that the address of v doesn't change in the loop and the destination is never written within the loop, so the read could be hoisted out of the loop.
Even now, powerpc (as an example) defines atomic_t as:
typedef struct { volatile int counter; } atomic_t
That volatile is there precisely to force the compiler to dereference it
every single time.
Chris - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
- From: Zan Lynx <[email protected]>
- Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
- From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>
- Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
- From: Chris Snook <[email protected]>
- Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
- References:
- why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
- From: "Robert P. J. Day" <[email protected]>
- Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
- From: Jerry Jiang <[email protected]>
- Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
- From: Chris Snook <[email protected]>
- Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
- From: "Chris Friesen" <[email protected]>
- Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
- From: Chris Snook <[email protected]>
- Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
- From: "Chris Friesen" <[email protected]>
- Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
- From: Chris Snook <[email protected]>
- why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
- Prev by Date: Re: [NFS] 2.6.23-rc1-mm2
- Next by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH] uli526x: Add suspend and resume routines
- Previous by thread: Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
- Next by thread: Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
- Index(es):
 |