On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Chris Snook wrote:
> > volatile means that there is some vague notion of "read it now". But that
> > really does not exist. Instead we control visibility via barriers (smp_wmb,
> > smp_rmb). Would it not be best to not have volatile at all in atomic
> > operations and let the barriers do the work?
>
> From my reply in the other thread...
>
> But barriers force a flush of *everything* in scope, which we generally don't
> want. On the other hand, we pretty much always want to flush atomic_*
> operations. One way or another, we should be restricting the volatile
> behavior to the thing that needs it. On most architectures, this patch set
> just moves that from the declaration, where it is considered harmful, to the
> use, where it is considered an occasional necessary evil.
>
> If you really, *really* distrust the compiler that much, you shouldn't be
> using barrier, since that uses volatile under the hood too. You should just
> go ahead and implement the atomic operations in assembler, like Segher
> Boessenkool did for powerpc in response to my previous patchset.
>From my reply on the other thread:
Maybe we need two read functions? One volatile, one not?
The atomic_read()s that I have in slub really do not care about when the
variables are read. And if volatile creates overhead then I rather not have it.
-
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]
