Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 Jun 2007 13:48:13 +0200 | From | Heiko Carstens <> | Subject | volatile and atomic_t/spinlock_t |
| |
I'm just wondering why we have an inconsistency between several archs when it comes to the definitions of atomic_t, atomic64_t, spinlock_t and their accessors. Currently we have on most architectures something like
typedef struct { volatile int counter; } atomic_t;
except for i386/x86_64 which has
typedef struct { int counter; } atomic_t;
but then again we have (including x86_64)
typedef struct { volatile long counter; } atomic64_t;
In addition we have
#define atomic_read(v) ((v)->counter) #define atomic64_read(v) ((v)->counter)
So something like
(1) while (atomic_read(&v));
May or may not work. Yes, I know it should be
(2) while (atomic_read(&v)) cpu_relax();
I'm just wondering about the inconsistency between 32 and 64 bit here and if (1) is supposed to work or not.
When it comes to spinlock_t we have (on i386):
typedef struct { unsigned int slock; } raw_spinlock_t;
and
static inline int __raw_spin_is_locked(raw_spinlock_t *x) { return *(volatile signed char *)(&(x)->slock) <= 0; }
Most other architectures have something like this
typedef struct { volatile unsigned int slock; } raw_spinlock_t;
and
#define __raw_spin_is_locked(x) ((x)->slock != 0)
So is
while (__raw_spin_is_locked(&v));
supposed to work? Or should that be
while (__raw_spin_is_locked(&v)) cpu_relax();
as well and all the volatiles can/should go away? - 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/
| |