lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateWed, 8 Aug 2007 10:27:05 +0800
FromJerry Jiang <>
SubjectRe: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:32:23 -0400
Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com> wrote:

> > It seems like this would fall more into the case of the arch providing 
> > guarantees when using locked/atomic access rather than anything 
> > SMP-related, no?.
> 
> But if you're not using SMP, the only way you get a race condition is if your 
> compiler is reordering instructions that have side effects which are invisible 
> to the compiler.  This can happen with MMIO registers, but it's not an issue 
> with an atomic_t we're declaring in real memory.
> 

Under non-SMP, some compilers would reordering instructions as they think
and C standard informally guarantees all operations on volatile data
are executed in the sequence in which they appear in the source code,
right?

So no reordering happens with volatile, right?

-- Jerry

> 	-- 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 04:35    [from the cache]
©2003-2008