[lkml]   [2004]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] fix get_jiffies_64 to work on voyager

    [ This is a big rant against using "volatile" on data structures. Feel
    free to ignore it, but the fact is, I'm right. You should never EVER use
    "volatile" on a data structure. ]

    On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Tim Schmielau wrote:
    > We then need to make jiffies_64 volatile, since we violate the rule to
    > never read it.

    No, we should _never_ make anything volatile. There just isn't any reason
    to. The compiler will never do any "better" with a volatile, it will only
    ever do worse.

    If there are memory ordering constraints etc, the compiler won't be able
    to handle them anyway, and volatile will be a no-op. That's why we have
    "barrier()" and "mb()" and friends.

    The _only_ acceptable use of "volatile" is basically:

    - in _code_ (not data structures), where we might mark a place as making
    a special type of access. For example, in the PCI MMIO read functions,
    rather than use inline assembly to force the particular access (which
    would work equally well), we can force the pointer to a volatile type.

    Similarly, we force this for "test_bit()" macros etc, because they are
    documented to work on SMP-safe. But it's the _code_ that works that
    way, not the data structures.

    And this is an important distinctions: there are specific pieces of
    _code_ that may be SMP-safe (for whatever reasons the writer thinks).
    Data structures themselves are never SMP safe.

    Ergo: never mark data structures "volatile". It's a sure sign of a bug
    if the thing isn't a memory-mapped IO register (and even then it's
    likely a bug, since you really should be using the proper functions).

    (Some driver writers use "volatile" for mailboxes that are updated by
    DMA from the hardware. It _can_ be correct there, but the fact is, you
    might as well put the "volatile" in the code just out of principle).

    That said, the "sure sign of a bug" case has one specific sub-case:

    - to paste over bugs that you really don't tink are worth fixing any
    other way. This is why "jiffies" itself is declared volatile: just to
    let people write code that does "while (time_before(xxx, jiffies))".

    But the "jiffies" case is safe only _exactly_ because it's an atomic read.
    You always get a valid value - so it's actually "safe" to mark jiffies as
    baing volatile. It allows people to be sloppy (bad), but at least it
    allows people to be sloppy in a safe way.

    In contrast, "jiffies_64" is _not_ an area where you can safely let the
    compiler read a unstable value, so "volatile" is fundamentally wrong for
    it. You need to have some locking, or to explicitly say "we don't care in
    this case", and in both cases it would be wrong to call the thing
    "volatile". With locking, it _isn't_ volatile, and with "we don't care",
    it had better not make any difference. In either case the "volatile" is

    We had absolutely _tons_ of bugs in the original networking code, where
    clueless people thougth that "volatile" somehow means that you don't need
    locking. EVERY SINGLE CASE, and I mean EVERY ONE, was a bug.

    There are some other cases where the "volatile" keyword is fine, notably
    inline asm has a specific meaning that is pretty well-defined and very
    useful. But in all other cases I'd suggest having the volatile be part of
    the code, possibly with an explanation _why_ it is ok to use volatile
    there unless it is obvious.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.037 / U:97.392 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site