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

I can't speak for this particular case, but there could be similar code

examples elsewhere, where we do the atomic ops on an atomic_t object

inside a higher-level locking scheme that would take care of the kind of problem you're referring to here. It would be useful for such or similar code if the compiler kept the value of that atomic object in a register.

If there is a higher-level locking scheme then there is no point to
using atomic_t variables.  Atomic_t is specifically for the situation
where multiple CPUs are updating a variable without locking.

And don't forget about the case where it is an I/O device that is
updating the memory (in buffer descriptors or similar).  The driver
needs to do a "volatile" atomic read to get at the most recent version

of that data, which can be important for optimising latency (or throughput

even).  There is no other way the kernel can get that info -- doing an
MMIO read is way way too expensive.


Segher

-
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:
  • [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
    • From: Chris Snook <[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: Satyam Sharma <[email protected]>
  • 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 Mackerras <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
    • From: Herbert Xu <[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: Satyam Sharma <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
    • From: Paul Mackerras <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] [540/2many] MAINTAINERS - WATCHDOG DEVICE DRIVERS
• Next by Date: Re: Self healing in linux ?
• 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]