[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46B72C58.5030502@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:12:40 -0400
From: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
To: Jerry Jiang <wjiang@...ilience.com>
CC: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
Jerry Jiang wrote:
> Is there some feedback on this point ?
>
> Thank you
> ./Jerry
>
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 08:49:37 -0400 (EDT)
> "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com> wrote:
>
>> prompted by the earlier post on "volatile"s, is there a reason that
>> most atomic_t typedefs use volatile int's, while the rest don't?
>>
>> $ grep "typedef.*struct" $(find . -name atomic.h)
>> ./include/asm-v850/atomic.h:typedef struct { int counter; } atomic_t;
>> ./include/asm-mips/atomic.h:typedef struct { volatile int counter; } atomic_t;
>> ./include/asm-mips/atomic.h:typedef struct { volatile long counter; } atomic64_t;
>> ...
>>
>> etc, etc. just curious.
If your architecture doesn't support SMP, the volatile keyword doesn't do
anything except add a useless memory fetch. Also, some SMP architectures (i386,
x86_64, s390) provide sufficiently strong guarantees about memory access
ordering that it's not necessary as long as you're using the appropriate
locked/atomic instructions in the atomic operations.
-- Chris
-
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