Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?

From: Chris Snook
Date: Wed Aug 08 2007 - 16:55:09 EST


Jerry Jiang wrote:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:47:53 -0400
Chris Snook <csnook@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Chris Friesen wrote:
Chris Snook wrote:

This is not a problem, since indirect references will cause the CPU to fetch the data from memory/cache anyway.
Isn't Zan's sample code (that shows the problem) already using indirect references?
Yeah, I misinterpreted his conclusion. I thought about this for a while, and realized that it's perfectly legal for the compiler to re-use a value obtained from atomic_read. All that matters is that the read itself was atomic. The use (or non-use) of the volatile keyword is really more relevant to the other atomic operations. If you want to guarantee a re-read from memory, use barrier(). This, incidentally, uses volatile under the hood.



So for example, without volatile

int a = read_atomic(v);
int b = read_atomic(v);

the compiler will optimize it as b = a, But with volatile, it will be forced to fetch v's value from memory
again.

So, come back our initial question,

include/asm-v850/atomic.h:typedef struct { int counter; } atomic_t;

Why is it right without volatile?

Because atomic_t doesn't promise a memory fetch every time. It merely promises that any atomic_* operations will, in fact, be atomic. For example, posted today:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/8/122

-- Chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/