Re: [PATCH 1/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently on alpha

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

 



Paul E. McKenney wrote:
Why not the same access-once semantics for atomic_set() as
for atomic_read()?  As this patch stands, it might introduce
architecture-specific compiler-induced bugs due to the fact that
atomic_set() used to imply volatile behavior but no longer does.

When we make the volatile cast in atomic_read(), we're casting an rvalue to volatile. This unambiguously tells the compiler that we want to re-load that register from memory. What's "volatile behavior" for an lvalue? A write to an lvalue already implies an eventual write to memory, so this would be a no-op. Maybe you'll write to the register a few times before flushing it to memory, but it will happen eventually. With an rvalue, there's no guarantee that it will *ever* load from memory, which is what volatile fixes.

I think what you have in mind is LOCK_PREFIX behavior, which is not the purpose of atomic_set. We use LOCK_PREFIX in the inline assembly for the atomic_* operations that read, modify, and write a value, only because it is necessary to perform that entire transaction atomically.

	-- 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