[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 03:47:57AM -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
> If they're not doing anything, sure. Plenty of loops actually do some sort
> of real work while waiting for their halt condition, possibly even work
> which is necessary for their halt condition to occur, and you definitely
> don't want to be doing cpu_relax() in this case. On register-rich
> architectures you can do quite a lot of work without needing to reuse the
> register containing the result of the atomic_read(). Those are precisely
> the architectures where barrier() hurts the most.

I have a problem with this argument. The same loop could be
using a non-atomic as long as the updaters are serialised. Would
you suggest that we turn such non-atomics into volatiles too?

Any loop that's waiting for an external halt condition either
has to schedule away (which is a barrier) or you'd be busy
waiting in which case you should use cpu_relax.

Do you have an example where this isn't the case?

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 13:11    [W:0.066 / U:29.652 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site