[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070809131423.GA9927@shell.boston.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 09:14:23 -0400
From: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ak@...e.de,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, wensong@...ux-vs.org, horms@...ge.net.au,
wjiang@...ilience.com, cfriesen@...tel.com, zlynx@....org,
rpjday@...dspring.com, jesper.juhl@...il.com
Subject: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
As recent discussions[1], and bugs[2] have shown, there is a great deal of
confusion about the expected behavior of atomic_read(), compounded by the
fact that it is not the same on all architectures. Since users expect calls
to atomic_read() to actually perform a read, it is not desirable to allow
the compiler to optimize this away. Requiring the use of barrier() in this
case is inefficient, since we only want to re-load the atomic_t variable,
not everything else in scope.
This patchset makes the behavior of atomic_read uniform by removing the
volatile keyword from all atomic_t and atomic64_t definitions that currently
have it, and instead explicitly casts the variable as volatile in
atomic_read(). This leaves little room for creative optimization by the
compiler, and is in keeping with the principles behind "volatile considered
harmful".
Busy-waiters should still use cpu_relax(), but fast paths may be able to
reduce their use of barrier() between some atomic_read() calls.
-- Chris
1) http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/1/52
2) http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/8/122
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists