On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
> >> Doesn't "atomic WRT all processors" require volatility?
> >
> > No, it definitely doesn't. Why should it?
> >
> > "Atomic w.r.t. all processors" is just your normal, simple "atomicity"
> > for SMP systems (ensure that that object is modified / set / replaced
> > in main memory atomically) and has nothing to do with "volatile"
> > behaviour.
> >
> > "Volatile behaviour" itself isn't consistently defined (at least
> > definitely not consistently implemented in various gcc versions across
> > platforms), but it is /expected/ to mean something like: "ensure that
> > every such access actually goes all the way to memory, and is not
> > re-ordered w.r.t. to other accesses, as far as the compiler can take
> > care of these". The last "as far as compiler can take care" disclaimer
> > comes about due to CPUs doing their own re-ordering nowadays.
> >
> > For example (say on i386):
>
> [...]
>
> > In (A) the compiler optimized "a = 10;" away, but the actual store
> > of the final value "20" to "a" was still "atomic". (B) and (C) also
> > exhibit "volatile" behaviour apart from the "atomicity".
> >
> > But as others replied, it seems some callers out there depend upon
> > atomic ops exhibiting "volatile" behaviour as well, so that answers
> > my initial question, actually. I haven't looked at the code Paul
> > pointed me at, but I wonder if that "forget(x)" macro would help
> > those cases. I'd wish to avoid the "volatile" primitive, personally.
>
> So, looking at load instead of store, understand I correctly that in
> your opinion
>
> int b;
>
> b = atomic_read(&a);
> if (b)
> do_something_time_consuming();
>
> b = atomic_read(&a);
> if (b)
> do_something_more();
>
> should be changed to explicitly forget(&a) after
> do_something_time_consuming?
No, I'd actually prefer something like what Christoph Lameter suggested,
i.e. users (such as above) who want "volatile"-like behaviour from atomic
ops can use alternative functions. How about something like:
#define atomic_read_volatile(v) \
({ \
forget(&(v)->counter); \
((v)->counter); \
})
Or possibly, implement these "volatile" atomic ops variants in inline asm
like the patch that Sebastian Siewior has submitted on another thread just
a while back.
Of course, if we find there are more callers in the kernel who want the
volatility behaviour than those who don't care, we can re-define the
existing ops to such variants, and re-name the existing definitions to
somethine else, say "atomic_read_nonvolatile" for all I care.
-
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/
