Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:47:53 -0400 | From | Chris Snook <> | Subject | Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are? |
| |
Chris Friesen wrote: > Chris Snook wrote: > >> This is not a problem, since indirect references will cause the CPU to >> fetch the data from memory/cache anyway. > > Isn't Zan's sample code (that shows the problem) already using indirect > references?
Yeah, I misinterpreted his conclusion. I thought about this for a while, and realized that it's perfectly legal for the compiler to re-use a value obtained from atomic_read. All that matters is that the read itself was atomic. The use (or non-use) of the volatile keyword is really more relevant to the other atomic operations. If you want to guarantee a re-read from memory, use barrier(). This, incidentally, uses volatile under the hood.
-- 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/
| |