[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures

    On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > That's not obviously just taste to me. Not when the primitive has many
    > (perhaps, the majority) of uses that do not require said barriers. And
    > this is not solely about the code generation (which, as Paul says, is
    > relatively minor even on x86). I prefer people to think explicitly
    > about barriers in their lockless code.


    I think the important issues are:

    - "volatile" itself is simply a badly/weakly defined issue. The semantics
    of it as far as the compiler is concerned are really not very good, and
    in practice tends to boil down to "I will generate so bad code that
    nobody can accuse me of optimizing anything away".

    - "volatile" - regardless of how well or badly defined it is - is purely
    a compiler thing. It has absolutely no meaning for the CPU itself, so
    it at no point implies any CPU barriers. As a result, even if the
    compiler generates crap code and doesn't re-order anything, there's
    nothing that says what the CPU will do.

    - in other words, the *only* possible meaning for "volatile" is a purely
    single-CPU meaning. And if you only have a single CPU involved in the
    process, the "volatile" is by definition pointless (because even
    without a volatile, the compiler is required to make the C code appear
    consistent as far as a single CPU is concerned).

    So, let's take the example *buggy* code where we use "volatile" to wait
    for other CPU's:

    atomic_set(&var, 0);
    while (!atomic_read(&var))
    /* nothing */;

    which generates an endless loop if we don't have atomic_read() imply

    The point here is that it's buggy whether the volatile is there or not!
    Exactly because the user expects multi-processing behaviour, but
    "volatile" doesn't actually give any real guarantees about it. Another CPU
    may have done:

    external_ptr = kmalloc(..);
    /* Setup is now complete, inform the waiter */

    but the fact is, since the other CPU isn't serialized in any way, the
    "while-loop" (even in the presense of "volatile") doesn't actually work
    right! Whatever the "atomic_read()" was waiting for may not have
    completed, because we have no barriers!

    So if "volatile" makes a difference, it is invariably a sign of a bug in
    serialization (the one exception is for IO - we use "volatile" to avoid
    having to use inline asm for IO on x86) - and for "random values" like

    So the question should *not* be whether "volatile" actually fixes bugs. It
    *never* fixes a bug. But what it can do is to hide the obvious ones. In
    other words, adding a volaile in the above kind of situation of
    "atomic_read()" will certainly turn an obvious bug into something that
    works "practically all of the time).

    So anybody who argues for "volatile" fixing bugs is fundamentally
    incorrect. It does NO SUCH THING. By arguing that, such people only show
    that you have no idea what they are talking about.

    So the only reason to add back "volatile" to the atomic_read() sequence is
    not to fix bugs, but to _hide_ the bugs better. They're still there, they
    are just a lot harder to trigger, and tend to be a lot subtler.

    And hey, sometimes "hiding bugs well enough" is ok. In this case, I'd
    argue that we've successfully *not* had the volatile there for eight
    months on x86-64, and that should tell people something.

    (Does _removing_ the volatile fix bugs? No - callers still need to think
    about barriers etc, and lots of people don't. So I'm not claiming that
    removing volatile fixes any bugs either, but I *am* claiming that:

    - removing volatile makes some bugs easier to see (which is mostly a good
    thing: they were there before, anyway).

    - removing volatile generates better code (which is a good thing, even if
    it's just 0.1%)

    - removing volatile removes a huge mental *bug* that lots of people seem
    to have, as shown by this whole thread. Anybody who thinks that
    "volatile" actually fixes anything has a gaping hole in their head, and
    we should remove volatile just to make sure that nobody thinks that it
    means soemthign that it doesn't mean!

    In other words, this whole discussion has just convinced me that we should
    *not* add back "volatile" to "atomic_read()" - I was willing to do it for
    practical and "hide the bugs" reasons, but having seen people argue for
    it, thinking that it actually fixes something, I'm now convinced that the
    *last* thing we should do is to encourage that kind of superstitious

    "volatile" is like a black cat crossing the road. Sure, it affects
    *something* (at a minimum: before, the black cat was on one side of the
    road, afterwards it is on the other side of the road), but it has no
    bigger and longer-lasting direct affects.

    People who think "volatile" really matters are just fooling themselves.

    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: 2007-08-17 18:53    [W:0.030 / U:29.512 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site