Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 11:45:31 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.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
Message-ID: <20070809184531.GH8424@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20070809143255.GA8424@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <46BB2A5A.5090006@redhat.com> <20070809150445.GB8424@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <46BB31A6.4080507@redhat.com> <20070809161024.GC8424@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <46BB4281.7010803@redhat.com> <20070809165853.GD8424@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <46BB4B7B.4070007@redhat.com> <20070809174150.GE8424@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <46BB5960.9040009@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <46BB5960.9040009@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1850
Lines: 34

On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 02:13:52PM -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 01:14:35PM -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
> >>                                If you're depending on volatile writes 
> >>being visible to other CPUs, you're screwed either way, because the CPU 
> >>can hold that data in cache as long as it wants before it writes it to 
> >>memory.  When this finally does happen, it will happen atomically, which 
> >>is all that atomic_set guarantees.  If you need to guarantee that the 
> >>value is written to memory at a particular time in your execution 
> >>sequence, you either have to read it from memory to force the compiler to 
> >>store it first (and a volatile cast in atomic_read will suffice for this) 
> >>or you have to use LOCK_PREFIX instructions which will invalidate remote 
> >>cache lines containing the same variable.  This patch doesn't change 
> >>either of these cases.
> >
> >The case that it -can- change is interactions with interrupt handlers.
> >And NMI/SMI handlers, for that matter.
> 
> You have a point here, but only if you can guarantee that the interrupt 
> handler is running on a processor sharing the cache that has the 
> not-yet-written volatile value.  That implies a strictly non-SMP 
> architecture.  At the moment, none of those have volatile in their 
> declaration of atomic_t, so this patch can't break any of them.

This can also happen when using per-CPU variables.  And there are a
number of per-CPU variables that are either atomic themselves or are
structures containing atomic fields.

							Thanx, Paul
-
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/