[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070815162722.GD9645@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:27:22 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>, clameter@....com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
ak@...e.de, 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, segher@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 06:09:35PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 08:05:38PM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> >>> I don't know if this here is affected:
>
> [...something like]
> b = atomic_read(a);
> for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
> msleep_interruptible(63);
> c = atomic_read(a);
> if (c != b) {
> b = c;
> i = 0;
> }
> }
>
> > Nope, we're calling schedule which is a rather heavy-weight
> > barrier.
>
> How does the compiler know that msleep() has got barrier()s?
Because msleep_interruptible() is in a separate compilation unit,
the compiler has to assume that it might modify any arbitrary global.
In many cases, the compiler also has to assume that msleep_interruptible()
might call back into a function in the current compilation unit, thus
possibly modifying global static variables.
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