On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Chris Friesen wrote: > > I assume you mean "except for IO-related code and 'random' values like > jiffies" as you mention later on? Yes. There *are* valid uses for "volatile", but they have remained the same for the last few years: - "jiffies" - internal per-architecture IO implementations that can do them as normal stores. > I assume other values set in interrupt handlers would count as "random" > from a volatility perspective? I don't really see any valid case. I can imagine that you have your own "jiffy" counter in a driver, but what's the point, really? I'd suggest not using volatile, and using barriers instead. > > > So anybody who argues for "volatile" fixing bugs is fundamentally > > incorrect. It does NO SUCH THING. By arguing that, such people only > > show that you have no idea what they are talking about. > What about reading values modified in interrupt handlers, as in your > "random" case? Or is this a bug where the user of atomic_read() is > invalidly expecting a read each time it is called? Quite frankly, the biggest reason for using "volatile" on jiffies was really historic. So even the "random" case is not really a very strong one. You'll notice that anybody who is actually careful will be using sequence locks for the jiffy accesses, if only because the *full* jiffy count is actually a 64-bit value, and so you cannot get it atomically on a 32-bit architecture even on a single CPU (ie a timer interrupt might happen in between reading the low and the high word, so "volatile" is only used for the low 32 bits). So even for jiffies, we actually have: extern u64 __jiffy_data jiffies_64; extern unsigned long volatile __jiffy_data jiffies; where the *real* jiffies is not volatile: the volatile one is using linker tricks to alias the low 32 bits: - arch/i386/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S: ... jiffies = jiffies_64; ... and the only reason we do all these games is (a) it works and (b) it's legacy. Note how I do *not* say "(c) it's a good idea". Linus - 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: 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: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <[email protected]>
- Re: [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: Paul Mackerras <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Linus Torvalds <[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: Satyam Sharma <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Nick Piggin <[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: Nick Piggin <[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: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: "Chris Friesen" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add scaled time to taskstats based process accounting
- Next by Date: [PATCH] CIFS: check for granted memory
- 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):