Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 07 Aug 2007 15:38:22 -0600 | From | "Chris Friesen" <> | Subject | Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are? |
| |
Chris Snook wrote:
> That's why we define atomic_read like so: > > #define atomic_read(v) ((v)->counter) > > This avoids the aliasing problem, because the compiler must de-reference > the pointer every time, which requires a memory fetch.
Can you guarantee that the pointer dereference cannot be optimised away on any architecture? Without other restrictions, a suficiently intelligent optimiser could notice that the address of v doesn't change in the loop and the destination is never written within the loop, so the read could be hoisted out of the loop.
Even now, powerpc (as an example) defines atomic_t as:
typedef struct { volatile int counter; } atomic_t
That volatile is there precisely to force the compiler to dereference it every single time.
Chris - 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/
| |