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

From: Chris Snook
Date: Thu Aug 16 2007 - 22:05:51 EST


Herbert Xu wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 03:48:54PM -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
Can you find an actual atomic_read code snippet there that is
broken without the volatile modifier?
A whole bunch of atomic_read uses will be broken without the volatile modifier once we start removing barriers that aren't needed if volatile behavior is guaranteed.

Could you please cite the file/function names so we can
see whether removing the barrier makes sense?

Thanks,

At a glance, several architectures' implementations of smp_call_function() have one or more legitimate atomic_read() busy-waits that shouldn't be using CPU-relax. Some of them do work in the loop.

I'm sure there are plenty more examples that various maintainers could find in their own code.

-- Chris
-
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/