[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:31:57 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Zdenek Kabelac <zdenek.kabelac@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Pierre Ossman <drzeus-mmc@...eus.cx>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] Re: using long instead of atomic_t when only set/read is required
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 04:16:33AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 March 2008 02:53, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Atomicity of reads of write for pointers and integral types (other than
> > > long long) should be documented.
> >
> > NAK.
> >
> > Atomicity of reads or writes for pointers and integral types is NOT
> > guaranteed. Gcc doesn't believe in your guarantee.
>
> Are you sure gcc doesn't? Or is it just "C"?
>
> Linux wouldn't work today if gcc did something non-atomic there
> (presuming you're talking about naturally aligned pointers/ints).
> It is widely used and accepted.
>
> RCU users are far from the only places to rely on this, although
> I guess they are the main ones when it comes to assigning pointers
> atomically.
It is true that gcc can refetch pointers/ints if it runs out of registers,
which is why rcu_dereference() recently had an ACCESS_ONCE() added to it.
But such refetching cannot result in a mish-mash of two different
pointer values, confusing though it might be to the affected code.
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists