lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/23] document preferred use of volatile with atomic_t
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Chris Snook wrote:

> > volatile means that there is some vague notion of "read it now". But that
> > really does not exist. Instead we control visibility via barriers (smp_wmb,
> > smp_rmb). Would it not be best to not have volatile at all in atomic
> > operations and let the barriers do the work?
>
> From my reply in the other thread...
>
> But barriers force a flush of *everything* in scope, which we generally don't
> want. On the other hand, we pretty much always want to flush atomic_*
> operations. One way or another, we should be restricting the volatile
> behavior to the thing that needs it. On most architectures, this patch set
> just moves that from the declaration, where it is considered harmful, to the
> use, where it is considered an occasional necessary evil.
>
> If you really, *really* distrust the compiler that much, you shouldn't be
> using barrier, since that uses volatile under the hood too. You should just
> go ahead and implement the atomic operations in assembler, like Segher
> Boessenkool did for powerpc in response to my previous patchset.

From my reply on the other thread:

Maybe we need two read functions? One volatile, one not?

The atomic_read()s that I have in slub really do not care about when the
variables are read. And if volatile creates overhead then I rather not have it.

-
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: 2007-08-15 01:03    [W:0.256 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site