Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965598AbXHIOyf (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 10:54:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S935348AbXHIOyL (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 10:54:11 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:41399 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S940208AbXHIOyI (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 10:54:08 -0400 Message-ID: <46BB2A5A.5090006@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 10:53:14 -0400 From: Chris Snook User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070419) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, ak@suse.de, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, davem@davemloft.net, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, wensong@linux-vs.org, horms@verge.net.au, wjiang@resilience.com, cfriesen@nortel.com, zlynx@acm.org, rpjday@mindspring.com, jesper.juhl@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently on alpha References: <20070809132442.GA13042@shell.boston.redhat.com> <20070809143255.GA8424@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20070809143255.GA8424@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1354 Lines: 25 Paul E. McKenney wrote: > Why not the same access-once semantics for atomic_set() as > for atomic_read()? As this patch stands, it might introduce > architecture-specific compiler-induced bugs due to the fact that > atomic_set() used to imply volatile behavior but no longer does. When we make the volatile cast in atomic_read(), we're casting an rvalue to volatile. This unambiguously tells the compiler that we want to re-load that register from memory. What's "volatile behavior" for an lvalue? A write to an lvalue already implies an eventual write to memory, so this would be a no-op. Maybe you'll write to the register a few times before flushing it to memory, but it will happen eventually. With an rvalue, there's no guarantee that it will *ever* load from memory, which is what volatile fixes. I think what you have in mind is LOCK_PREFIX behavior, which is not the purpose of atomic_set. We use LOCK_PREFIX in the inline assembly for the atomic_* operations that read, modify, and write a value, only because it is necessary to perform that entire transaction atomically. -- Chris - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/