On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 01:15:52PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 08:54:46AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >> Chris Snook <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > cpu_relax() contains a barrier, so it should do the right thing. For
> >> > non-smp architectures, I'm concerned about interacting with interrupt
> >> > handlers. Some drivers do use atomic_* operations.
> >>
> >> What problems with interrupt handlers? Access to int/long must
> >> be atomic or we're in big trouble anyway.
> >
> > Reordering due to compiler optimizations. CPU reordering does not
> > affect interactions with interrupt handlers on a given CPU, but
> > reordering due to compiler code-movement optimization does. Since
> > volatile can in some cases suppress code-movement optimizations,
> > it can affect interactions with interrupt handlers.
>
> If such reordering matters, then you should use one of the
> *mb macros or barrier() rather than relying on possibly
> hidden volatile cast.
If communicating among CPUs, sure. However, when communicating between
mainline and interrupt/NMI handlers on the same CPU, the barrier() and
most expecially the *mb() macros are gross overkill. So there really
truly is a place for volatile -- not a large place, to be sure, but a
place nonetheless.
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]
