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

[Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>]

> > Right. ROTFL... volatile actually breaks atomic_t instead of making 
> > it safe. x++ becomes a register load, increment and a register store. 
> > Without volatile we can increment the memory directly. It seems that 
> > volatile requires that the variable is loaded into a register first 
> > and then operated upon. Understandable when you think about volatile 
> > being used to access memory mapped I/O registers where a RMW 
> > operation could be problematic.
>
> So, if we want consistent behavior, we're pretty much screwed unless 
> we use inline assembler everywhere?

Nah, this whole argument is flawed -- "without volatile" we still
*cannot* "increment the memory directly".  On x86, you need a lock
prefix; on other archs, some other mechanism to make the memory
increment an *atomic* memory increment.

And no, RMW on MMIO isn't "problematic" at all, either.

An RMW op is a read op, a modify op, and a write op, all rolled
into one opcode.  But three actual operations.


The advantages of asm code for atomic_{read,set} are:
1) all the other atomic ops are implemented that way already;
2) you have full control over the asm insns selected, in particular,
   you can guarantee you *do* get an atomic op;
3) you don't need to use "volatile <data>" which generates
   not-all-that-good code on archs like x86, and we want to get rid
   of it anyway since it is problematic in many ways;
4) you don't need to use *(volatile <type>*)&<data>, which a) doesn't
   exist in C; b) isn't documented or supported in GCC; c) has a recent
   history of bugginess; d) _still uses volatile objects_; e) _still_
   is problematic in almost all those same ways as in 3);
5) you can mix atomic and non-atomic accesses to the atomic_t, which
   you cannot with the other alternatives.

The only disadvantage I know of is potentially slightly worse
instruction scheduling.  This is a generic asm() problem: GCC
cannot see what actual insns are inside the asm() block.


Segher

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/