[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1204673572.1020.12.camel@amd64.pyotr.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:32:52 +0000
From: Peter Hartley <pdh@...er.chaos.org.uk>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
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>
Subject: Re: [patch] Re: using long instead of atomic_t when only set/read
is required
On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 18:24 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Ok, I can understand the gcc side. But do we actually run on an
> architecture where
>
> long *x;
>
> *x = 0;
>
> racing with
>
> *x = 0x12345678;
>
> can produce
>
> *x == 0x12340000;
>
> or something like that? I'm told RCU relies on architectures not doing
> this, and I'd like to get this clarified.
ARM6, ARM7500 and similar do exactly this for short (and unsigned
short), although not for int, long, or pointers:
> struct foo { short b; short c; };
> void baa(struct foo *f, short cc) { f->c = cc; }
becomes (arm-linux-gcc -mcpu=arm6):
> baa:
> mov r3, r1, lsr #8
> strb r3, [r0, #3]
> strb r1, [r0, #2]
> mov pc, lr
note the two single-byte stores, as ARM6 didn't have the "store
halfword" instruction.
So I think Alan Stern's
"For all properly-aligned pointer and integral types other than long
long..."
should be amended to
"For all properly-aligned pointer and integral types other than short or
long long..."
Peter
--
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