Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?

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

 



Chris Friesen wrote:
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.

That would be a compiler bug.

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.

On most superscalar architectures, including powerpc, multiple instructions can be in flight simultaneously, potentially even reading and writing the same data. When the compiler detects data dependencies within a thread of execution, it will do the right thing. Putting the volatile keyword in here instructs the compiler to serialize accesses to this data even if it does not detect dependencies.

It's worth noting that all of the SMP architectures which lack the volatile keyword in their atomic_t definition inherit memory access semantics from ISAs that predate the advent of heavily-pipelined superscalar design. i386 and x86_64 get theirs from at least as far back as the 8086. I believe s390(x) inherits this from the s/370 ISA. These ISAs assume strictly serialized memory access, and anything binary-compatible with them must enforce this in hardware, even at the expense of performance. Modern ISAs that lack legacy baggage do away with this guarantee, putting the burden on the compiler to enforce serialization. When the compiler can't detect that it's needed, we use volatile to inform it explicitly.

	-- 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/

[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