Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures

[Lennert Buytenhek]

On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 07:07:33PM -0400, Chris Snook wrote:

> From: Chris Snook <csnook@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Some architectures currently do not declare the contents of an atomic_t to be
> volatile.  This causes confusion since atomic_read() might not actually read
> anything if an optimizing compiler re-uses a value stored in a register, which
> can break code that loops until something external changes the value of an
> atomic_t.  Avoiding such bugs requires using barrier(), which causes re-loads
> of all registers used in the loop, thus hurting performance instead of helping
> it, particularly on architectures where it's unnecessary.  Since we generally
> want to re-read the contents of an atomic variable on every access anyway,
> let's standardize the behavior across all architectures and avoid the
> performance and correctness problems of requiring the use of barrier() in
> loops that expect atomic_t variables to change externally.  This is relevant
> even on non-smp architectures, since drivers may use atomic operations in
> interrupt handlers.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chris Snook <csnook@xxxxxxxxxx>

Documentation/atomic_ops.txt would need updating:

	[...]

	One very important aspect of these two routines is that they DO NOT
	require any explicit memory barriers.  They need only perform the
	atomic_t counter update in an SMP safe manner.
-
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/