[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070811042943.GA13410@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:29:43 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>, dhowells@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, 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: Re: [PATCH 6/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently on frv
On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 08:54:46AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > cpu_relax() contains a barrier, so it should do the right thing. For
> > non-smp architectures, I'm concerned about interacting with interrupt
> > handlers. Some drivers do use atomic_* operations.
>
> What problems with interrupt handlers? Access to int/long must
> be atomic or we're in big trouble anyway.
Reordering due to compiler optimizations. CPU reordering does not
affect interactions with interrupt handlers on a given CPU, but
reordering due to compiler code-movement optimization does. Since
volatile can in some cases suppress code-movement optimizations,
it can affect interactions with interrupt handlers.
Thanx, Paul
-
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