Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
From: Paul E. McKenney
Date: Wed Aug 15 2007 - 20:40:48 EST
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 05:26:34PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>
> > In the kernel we use atomic variables in precisely those situations
> > where a variable is potentially accessed concurrently by multiple
> > CPUs, and where each CPU needs to see updates done by other CPUs in a
> > timely fashion. That is what they are for. Therefore the compiler
> > must not cache values of atomic variables in registers; each
> > atomic_read must result in a load and each atomic_set must result in a
> > store. Anything else will just lead to subtle bugs.
>
> This may have been the intend. However, today the visibility is controlled
> using barriers. And we have barriers that we use with atomic operations.
> Having volatile be the default just lead to confusion. Atomic read should
> just read with no extras. Extras can be added by using variants like
> atomic_read_volatile or so.
Seems to me that we face greater chance of confusion without the
volatile than with, particularly as compiler optimizations become
more aggressive. Yes, we could simply disable optimization, but
optimization can be quite helpful.
Thanx, Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/