Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764590AbXHOPIi (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:08:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759429AbXHOPIY (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:08:24 -0400 Received: from static-ip-62-75-166-246.inaddr.intergenia.de ([62.75.166.246]:52382 "EHLO vs166246.vserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757598AbXHOPIX (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:08:23 -0400 From: Michael Buesch To: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently on frv Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:06:47 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Nick Piggin , Herbert Xu , csnook@redhat.com, dhowells@redhat.com, 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 References: <20070811042943.GA13410@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070814224354.GE8243@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <200708151529.46780.arnd@arndb.de> In-Reply-To: <200708151529.46780.arnd@arndb.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200708151706.48974.mb@bu3sch.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1281 Lines: 38 On Wednesday 15 August 2007 15:29:43 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 15 August 2007, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > ACCESS_ONCE() is indeed intended to be used when actually loading or > > storing the variable. That said, I must admit that it is not clear to me > > why you would want to add an extra order() rather than ACCESS_ONCE()ing > > one or both of the adjacent accesses to that same variable. > > > > So, what am I missing? > > You're probably right, the only case I can construct is something like > > if (ACCESS_ONCE(x)) { > ... > ACCESS_ONCE(x)++; > } > > which would be slightly less efficient than > > if (x) > x++; > order(x); > > because in the first case, you need to do two ordered accesses > but only one in the second case. However, I can't think of a case > where this actually makes a noticable difference in real life. How can this example actually get used in a sane and race-free way? This would need locking around the whole if statement. But locking is a barrier. -- Greetings Michael. - 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/