[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0708181853210.29105@enigma.security.iitk.ac.in>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 19:06:33 +0530 (IST)
From: Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, horms@...ge.net.au,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rpjday@...dspring.com, ak@...e.de,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, cfriesen@...tel.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jesper.juhl@...il.com,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, zlynx@....org, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
wensong@...ux-vs.org, wjiang@...ilience.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all
architectures
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> >
> > No code does (or would do, or should do):
> >
> > x.counter++;
> >
> > on an "atomic_t x;" anyway.
>
> That's just an example of a general problem.
>
> No, you don't use "x.counter++". But you *do* use
>
> if (atomic_read(&x) <= 1)
>
> and loading into a register is stupid and pointless, when you could just
> do it as a regular memory-operand to the cmp instruction.
True, but that makes this a bad/poor code generation issue with the
compiler, not something that affects the _correctness_ of atomic ops if
"volatile" is used for that counter object (as was suggested), because
we'd always use the atomic_inc() etc primitives to do increments, which
are always (should be!) implemented to be atomic.
> And as far as the compiler is concerned, the problem is the 100% same:
> combining operations with the volatile memop.
>
> The fact is, a compiler that thinks that
>
> movl mem,reg
> cmpl $val,reg
>
> is any better than
>
> cmpl $val,mem
>
> is just not a very good compiler.
Absolutely, this is definitely a bug report worth opening with gcc. And
what you've said to explain this previously sounds definitely correct --
seeing "volatile" for any access does appear to just scare the hell out
of gcc and makes it generate such (poor) code.
Satyam
-
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