[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
Chris Snook <> wrote:
> Some architectures currently do not declare the contents of an atomic_t to be
> volatile. This causes confusion since atomic_read() might not actually read
> anything if an optimizing compiler re-uses a value stored in a register, which
> can break code that loops until something external changes the value of an
> atomic_t. Avoiding such bugs requires using barrier(), which causes re-loads

Such loops should always use something like cpu_relax() which comes
with a barrier.

> of all registers used in the loop, thus hurting performance instead of helping
> it, particularly on architectures where it's unnecessary. Since we generally

Do you have an example of such a loop where performance is hurt by this?

The IPVS code that led to this patch was simply broken and has been
fixed to use cpu_relax().

Visit Openswan at
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <>
Home Page:
PGP Key:
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: 2007-08-09 03:09    [W:0.140 / U:0.876 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site