lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
Subjectvolatile 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-06-05 14:03    [W:0.217 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site