[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1186663765.9669.6.camel@localhost>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:49:25 +0200
From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
Cc: Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
wensong@...ux-vs.org, horms@...ge.net.au, torvalds@...l.org
Subject: Re: [patch] ipvs: force read of atomic_t in while loop
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 08:40 -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
> > #define reload_var(x) __asm__ __volatile__ (whatever, x)
> >
> > I don't know inline assembly that much, but isn't it possible
> > with that to kind of "fake-touch" the variable, so the compiler
> > must reload it (and only it) to make sure it's up to date?
>
> We can do it in C, like this:
>
> -#define atomic_read(v) ((v)->counter)
> +#define atomic_read(v) (*(volatile int *)&(v)->counter)
>
> By casting it volatile at the precise piece of code where we want to
> guarantee a read from memory, there's little risk of the compiler
> getting creative in its interpretation of the code.
To answer the inline assembler question:
asm volatile ("" : "=m" (counter)) : "m" (counter) )
will force the compiler to reload the value from memory. But the cast to
(volatile int *) is even better.
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
-
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