> On Thursday 16 August 2007 01:39, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> >
> > static inline void wait_for_init_deassert(atomic_t *deassert)
> > {
> > - while (!atomic_read(deassert));
> > + while (!atomic_read(deassert))
> > + cpu_relax();
> > return;
> > }
>
> For less-than-briliant people like me, it's totally non-obvious that
> cpu_relax() is needed for correctness here, not just to make P4 happy.
>
> IOW: "atomic_read" name quite unambiguously means "I will read
> this variable from main memory". Which is not true and creates
> potential for confusion and bugs.
To me, "atomic_read" means a read which is synchronized with other
changes to the variable (using the atomic_XXX functions) in such
a way that I will always only see the "before" or "after"
state of the variable - never an intermediate state while a
modification is happening. It doesn't imply that I have to
see the "after" state immediately after another thread modifies
it.
Perhaps the Linux atomic_XXX functions work like that, or used
to work like that, but it's counter-intuitive to me that "atomic"
should imply a memory read.
Later,
Kenn
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
