Satyam Sharma wrote:
> Consider this (the above two functions exist only for clear_bit(),
> the atomic variant, as you already know), the _only_ memory reference
> we care about is that of the address of the passed bit-string:
>
> (1) The compiler must not optimize / elid it (i.e. we need to disallow
> compiler optimization for that reference) -- but we've already taken
> care of that with the __asm__ __volatile__ and the constraints on
> the memory "addr" operand there, and,
> (2) For the i386, it also includes an implicit memory (CPU) barrier
> already.
>
> So I /think/ it makes sense to let the compiler optimize _other_ memory
> references across the call to clear_bit(). There's a difference. I think
> we'd be safe even if we do this, because the synchronization in callers
> must be based upon the _passed bit-string_, otherwise _they_ are the
> ones who're buggy.
>
> [ However, elsewhere Jeremy Fitzhardinge mentioned the case of
> some callers, for instance, doing a memset() on an alias of
> the same bit-string. But again, I think that is dodgy/buggy/
> extremely border-line usage on the caller's side itself ...
> *unless* the caller is doing that inside a higher-level lock
> anyway, in which case he wouldn't be needing to use the
> locked variants either ... ]
>
You miss my point. If you have:
memset(&my_bitmask, 0, sizeof(my_bitmask));
set_bit(my_bitmask, 44);
Then unless the set_bit has a constraint argument which covers the whole
of the (multiword) bitmask, the compiler may see fit to interleave the
memset writes with the set_bit in bad ways. In other words, plain "+m"
(*(long *)ptr) won't cut it. You'd need "+m" (my_bitmask), I think.
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
