lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] Re: using long instead of atomic_t when only set/read is required
Hi!

> > Ok, so linux actually atomicity of long?
^~-- assumes should be here.

> No it doesn't. And even if it did you couldn't use long for this because
> atomic_t also ensures the points operations complete are defined. You
> might just about get away with volatile long * objects on x86 for simple
> assignments but for anything else gcc can and will generate code to
> update values whichever way it feels best - which includes turning
>
> long *x = a + b;
>
> into
>
> *x = a;
> *x += b;

Ok, I can understand the gcc side. But do we actually run on an
architecture where

long *x;

*x = 0;

racing with

*x = 0x12345678;

can produce

*x == 0x12340000;

or something like that? I'm told RCU relies on architectures not doing
this, and I'd like to get this clarified.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-03 18:41    [W:0.450 / U:0.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site