lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-08-08 00:09    [W:0.118 / U:0.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site