Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures

On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 06:41:40PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > Understood.  My point is not that the impact is precisely zero, but
> > rather that the impact on optimization is much less hurtful than the
> > problems that could arise otherwise, particularly as compilers become
> > more aggressive in their optimizations.
> 
> The problems arise because barriers are not used as required. Volatile 
> has wishy washy semantics and somehow marries memory barriers with data 
> access. It is clearer to separate the two. Conceptual cleanness usually 
> translates into better code. If one really wants the volatile then lets 
> make it explicit and use
> 
> 	atomic_read_volatile()

There are indeed architectures where you can cause gcc to emit memory
barriers in response to volatile.  I am assuming that we are -not-
making gcc do this.  Given this, then volatiles and memory barrier
instructions are orthogonal -- one controls the compiler, the other
controls the CPU.

						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/

---

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
    • From: Stefan Richter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
    • From: Satyam Sharma <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
    • From: Paul Mackerras <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
    • From: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
    • From: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
    • From: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]