On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:08:44 -0400
Chris Snook <[email protected]> wrote:
> Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 03:21:31AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Heiko Carstens <[email protected]>
> >> Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 11:33:00 +0200
> >>
> >>> Just saw this while grepping for atomic_reads in a while loops.
> >>> Maybe we should re-add the volatile to atomic_t. Not sure.
> >> I think whatever the choice, it should be done consistently
> >> on every architecture.
> >>
> >> It's just asking for trouble if your arch does it differently from
> >> every other.
> >
> > Well..currently it's i386/x86_64 and s390 which have no volatile
> > in atomic_t. And yes, of course I agree it should be consistent
> > across all architectures. But it isn't.
>
> Based on recent discussion, it's pretty clear that there's a lot of
> confusion about this. A lot of people (myself included, until I thought
> about it long and hard) will reasonably assume that calling
> atomic_read() will actually read the value from memory. Leaving out the
> volatile declaration seems like a pessimization to me. If you force
> people to use barrier() everywhere they're working with atomic_t, it
> will force re-reads of all the non-atomic data in use as well, which
> will cause more memory fetches of things that generally don't need
> barrier(). That and it's a bug waiting to happen.
>
> Andi -- your thoughts on the matter?
I'm not Andi, but this not-Andi thinks that permitting the compiler to cache
the results of atomic_read() is dumb.
-
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]
