On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 02:31:15PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:08:44 -0400
> Chris Snook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 03:21:31AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > >> From: Heiko Carstens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 11:33:00 +0200
> > >>
> > >>> Just saw this while grepping for atomic_reads in a while loops.
> > >>> Maybe we should re-add the volatile to atomic_t. Not sure.
> > >> I think whatever the choice, it should be done consistently
> > >> on every architecture.
> > >>
> > >> It's just asking for trouble if your arch does it differently from
> > >> every other.
> > >
> > > Well..currently it's i386/x86_64 and s390 which have no volatile
> > > in atomic_t. And yes, of course I agree it should be consistent
> > > across all architectures. But it isn't.
> >
> > Based on recent discussion, it's pretty clear that there's a lot of
> > confusion about this. A lot of people (myself included, until I thought
> > about it long and hard) will reasonably assume that calling
> > atomic_read() will actually read the value from memory. Leaving out the
> > volatile declaration seems like a pessimization to me. If you force
> > people to use barrier() everywhere they're working with atomic_t, it
> > will force re-reads of all the non-atomic data in use as well, which
> > will cause more memory fetches of things that generally don't need
> > barrier(). That and it's a bug waiting to happen.
> >
> > Andi -- your thoughts on the matter?
>
> I'm not Andi, but this not-Andi thinks that permitting the compiler to cache
> the results of atomic_read() is dumb.
Ok, how about this:
Subject: [PATCH] Add 'volatile' to atomic_t again.
From: Heiko Carstens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This basically reverts f9e9dcb38f5106fa8cdac04a9e967d5487f1cd20 which
removed 'volatile' from atomic_t for i386/x86_64. Reason for this
is to make sure that code like
while (atomic_read(&whatever));
continues to work.
Otherwise the compiler might generate code that will loop forever.
Also this makes sure atomic_t is the same across all architectures.
Cc: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
s390 patch will go in via Martin if this is accepted.
include/asm-i386/atomic.h | 2 +-
include/asm-x86_64/atomic.h | 2 +-
3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6/include/asm-i386/atomic.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/include/asm-i386/atomic.h
+++ linux-2.6/include/asm-i386/atomic.h
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
* on us. We need to use _exactly_ the address the user gave us,
* not some alias that contains the same information.
*/
-typedef struct { int counter; } atomic_t;
+typedef struct { volatile int counter; } atomic_t;
#define ATOMIC_INIT(i) { (i) }
Index: linux-2.6/include/asm-x86_64/atomic.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/include/asm-x86_64/atomic.h
+++ linux-2.6/include/asm-x86_64/atomic.h
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
* on us. We need to use _exactly_ the address the user gave us,
* not some alias that contains the same information.
*/
-typedef struct { int counter; } atomic_t;
+typedef struct { volatile int counter; } atomic_t;
#define ATOMIC_INIT(i) { (i) }
-
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
