On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
> > #define atomic_read_volatile(v) \
> > ({ \
> > forget((v)->counter); \
> > ((v)->counter); \
> > })
> >
> > where:
>
> *vomit* :)
I wonder if this'll generate smaller and better code than _both_ the
other atomic_read_volatile() variants. Would need to build allyesconfig
on lots of diff arch's etc to test the theory though.
> Not only do I hate the keyword volatile, but the barrier is only a
> one-sided affair so its probable this is going to have slightly
> different allowed reorderings than a real volatile access.
True ...
> Also, why would you want to make these insane accessors for atomic_t
> types? Just make sure everybody knows the basics of barriers, and they
> can apply that knowledge to atomic_t and all other lockless memory
> accesses as well.
Code that looks like:
while (!atomic_read(&v)) {
...
cpu_relax_no_barrier();
forget(v.counter);
^^^^^^^^
}
would be uglier. Also think about code such as:
a = atomic_read();
if (!a)
do_something();
forget();
a = atomic_read();
... /* some code that depends on value of a, obviously */
forget();
a = atomic_read();
...
So much explicit sprinkling of "forget()" looks ugly.
atomic_read_volatile()
on the other hand, looks neater. The "_volatile()" suffix makes it also
no less explicit than an explicit barrier-like macro that this primitive
is something "special", for code clarity purposes.
> > #define forget(a) __asm__ __volatile__ ("" :"=m" (a) :"m" (a))
>
> I like order(x) better, but it's not the most perfect name either.
forget(x) is just a stupid-placeholder-for-a-better-name. order(x) sounds
good but we could leave quibbling about function or macro names for later,
this thread is noisy as it is :-)
-
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/
