Re: [PATCH] driver core: fix shutdown races with probe/remove

[Alan Stern]

On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> > That just seems wrong.  By the same reasoning, the compiler is within 
> > its rights to transform either the original code or the code using 
> > ACCESS_ONCE into:
> > 
> > 	b = 999;
> > 	if (a)
> > 		b = 9;
> > 	else
> > 		b = 42;
> > 
> > and again, other code would be confused.  The simple fact is that 
> > SMP-safe code is not likely to be produced by a compiler that assumes 
> > everything is single-threaded.
> 
> If you use ACCESS_ONCE(), the compiler is prohibited from inserting
> the "b = 999".

What prohibits it?

>  If you don't use ACCESS_ONCE(), the compiler really
> is permitted to insert the "b = 999".  So, why would the compiler do
> such a thing?  One possible reason would be from optimizations using
> large registers to hold multiple values.  A store from such a register
> could clobber unrelated variables, but as long as the compiler fixes
> up the clobbering after the fact, it is within its rights to do so.
> 
> The sad fact is that the C standard really does permit the compiler
> to assume that it is generating sequential code.

Compiling the kernel requires quite a few extensions to the C standard.  
Assumptions about generating sequential code may well be among them.

Alan Stern

--
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/