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

[Jerry Jiang <wjiang@resilience.com>]

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:47:53 -0400
Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com> wrote:

> Chris Friesen wrote:
> > Chris Snook wrote:
> > 
> >> This is not a problem, since indirect references will cause the CPU to 
> >> fetch the data from memory/cache anyway.
> > 
> > Isn't Zan's sample code (that shows the problem) already using indirect 
> > references?
> 
> Yeah, I misinterpreted his conclusion.  I thought about this for a 
> while, and realized that it's perfectly legal for the compiler to re-use 
> a value obtained from atomic_read.  All that matters is that the read 
> itself was atomic.  The use (or non-use) of the volatile keyword is 

Sorry, I can't understand it a bit .., Could you do in detail?

-- Jerry


> really more relevant to the other atomic operations.  If you want to 
> guarantee a re-read from memory, use barrier().  This, incidentally, 
> uses volatile under the hood.
> 
> 	-- Chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/