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

"volatile" has nothing to do with reordering.  atomic_dec() writes
to memory, so it _does_ have "volatile semantics", implicitly, as
long as the compiler cannot optimise the atomic variable away
completely -- any store counts as a side effect.

Stores can be reordered. Only x86 has (mostly) implicit write ordering.
So no atomic_dec has no volatile semantics

Read again: I said the C "volatile" construct has nothing to do
with CPU memory access reordering.

and may be reordered on a variety
of processors. Writes to memory may not follow code order on several
processors.

The _compiler_ isn't allowed to reorder things here.  Yes, of course
you do need stronger barriers for many purposes, volatile isn't all
that useful you know.


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:
  • 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: 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: 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: Segher Boessenkool <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH resend] Fix a lock problem in generic phy code
• Next by Date: Re: [-mm patch] mm/memcontrol.c: clenups
• 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]