I wrote:
> Herbert Xu wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 10:06:31AM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
[...]
>>> expectation that each
>>> occurrence of atomic_read actually results in a load operation, i.e. is
>>> not optimized away.
[...]
>> Can you find an actual atomic_read code snippet there that is
>> broken without the volatile modifier?
PS: Just to clarify, I'm not speaking for the volatile modifier. I'm
not speaking for any particular implementation of atomic_t and its
accessors at all. All I am saying is that
- we use atomically accessed data types because we concurrently but
locklessly access this data,
- hence a read access to this data that could be optimized away
makes *no sense at all*.
The only sensible read accessor to an atomic datatype is a read accessor
that will not be optimized away.
So, the architecture guys can implement atomic_read however they want
--- as long as it cannot be optimized away.*
PPS: If somebody has code where he can afford to let the compiler
coalesce atomic_read with a previous access to the same data, i.e.
doesn't need and doesn't want all guarantees that the atomic_read API
makes (or IMO should make), then he can replace the atomic_read by a
local temporary variable.
*) Exceptions:
if (known_to_be_false)
read_access(a);
and the like.
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== =--- =----
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
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/
