lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:54:34 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <>
To:	Christoph Lameter <>
Cc:	Segher Boessenkool <>,
	Paul Mackerras <>,,, Stefan Richter <>,
	Satyam Sharma <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	David Miller <>,
	Ilpo Järvinen <>,,,,
	Netdev <>,,,
	Andrew Morton <>,,, Chris Snook <>,
	Herbert Xu <>,
	Linus Torvalds <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures

On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 11:59:29AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > "volatile" has nothing to do with reordering.  atomic_dec() writes
> > to memory, so it _does_ have "volatile semantics", implicitly, as
> > long as the compiler cannot optimise the atomic variable away
> > completely -- any store counts as a side effect.
> Stores can be reordered. Only x86 has (mostly) implicit write ordering. So 
> no atomic_dec has no volatile semantics and may be reordered on a variety 
> of processors. Writes to memory may not follow code order on several 
> processors.

The one exception to this being the case where process-level code is
communicating to an interrupt handler running on that same CPU -- on
all CPUs that I am aware of, a given CPU always sees its own writes
in order.

							Thanx, Paul
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists