On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 06:48:24PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
> Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:03:27 +0800
>
> > Such loops should always use something like cpu_relax() which comes
> > with a barrier.
>
> This is an excellent point.
>
> And it needs to be weighed with the error prone'ness Andrew mentioned.
> There probably is a middle ground somewhere.
OK... I'll bite. ACCESS_ONCE(), see http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/11/664.
This would allow ACCESS_ONCE(atomic_read(&x)) to be used where refetching
would be problematic, but allow the compiler free rein in cases where
refetching is OK.
The ACCESS_ONCE() primitive of course has its limitations as well, but
you did ask for a middle ground. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
-
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]
