Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across allarchitectures

[Satyam Sharma]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > Understood.  My point is not that the impact is precisely zero, but
> > rather that the impact on optimization is much less hurtful than the
> > problems that could arise otherwise, particularly as compilers become
> > more aggressive in their optimizations.
> 
> The problems arise because barriers are not used as required. Volatile 
> has wishy washy semantics and somehow marries memory barriers with data 
> access. It is clearer to separate the two. Conceptual cleanness usually 
> translates into better code. If one really wants the volatile then lets 
> make it explicit and use
> 
> 	atomic_read_volatile()

Completely agreed, again. To summarize again (had done so about ~100 mails
earlier in this thread too :-) ...

atomic_{read,set}_volatile() -- guarantees volatility also along with
atomicity (the two _are_ different concepts after all, irrespective of
whether callsites normally want one with the other or not)

atomic_{read,set}_nonvolatile() -- only guarantees atomicity, compiler
free to elid / coalesce / optimize such accesses, can keep the object
in question cached in a local register, leads to smaller text, etc.

As to which one should be the default atomic_read() is a question of
whether majority of callsites (more weightage to important / hot
codepaths, lesser to obscure callsites) want a particular behaviour.

Do we have a consensus here? (hoping against hope, probably :-)


[ This thread has gotten completely out of hand ... for my mail client
  alpine as well, it now seems. Reminds of that 1000+ GPLv3 fest :-) ]
-
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/