[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <30121.1268656565@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:36:05 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, torvalds@...l.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
sgruszka@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Document Linux's circular buffering capabilities
Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> Would you agree to add a quick note that these examples are simple
> enough to not strictly require ACCESS_ONCE but are meant to show what
> more general code would have to do? Else a reader might be left puzzled
> why he can't see in the example code the circumstances which require
> ACCESS_ONCE and may remain unsure about where to use it in his own works...
How about adding a bit:
Note the use of ACCESS_ONCE() in both algorithms to read the opposition index.
This prevents the compiler from discarding and reloading its cached value -
-which some compilers will do across smp_read_barrier_depends().
+which some compilers will do across smp_read_barrier_depends(). This isn't
+strictly needed if you can be sure that the opposition index will _only_ be
+used the once.
David
--
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