Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933013AbYCEA0j (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Mar 2008 19:26:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756986AbYCEA0a (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Mar 2008 19:26:30 -0500 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.152]:39430 "EHLO e34.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753063AbYCEA03 (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Mar 2008 19:26:29 -0500 Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 16:26:26 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Peter Hartley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pavel Machek , Alan Cox , Alan Stern , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Zdenek Kabelac , davem@davemloft.net, Pierre Ossman Subject: Re: [patch] Re: using long instead of atomic_t when only set/read is required Message-ID: <20080305002626.GD9517@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20080225090316.GA420@elf.ucw.cz> <20080303172410.GA13869@elf.ucw.cz> <1204673572.1020.12.camel@amd64.pyotr.org> <200803050054.04930.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200803050054.04930.rjw@sisk.pl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1753 Lines: 57 On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 12:54:03AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, 5 of March 2008, Peter Hartley wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 18:24 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Ok, I can understand the gcc side. But do we actually run on an > > > architecture where > > > > > > long *x; > > > > > > *x = 0; > > > > > > racing with > > > > > > *x = 0x12345678; > > > > > > can produce > > > > > > *x == 0x12340000; > > > > > > or something like that? I'm told RCU relies on architectures not doing > > > this, and I'd like to get this clarified. > > > > ARM6, ARM7500 and similar do exactly this for short (and unsigned > > short), although not for int, long, or pointers: > > > > > struct foo { short b; short c; }; > > > void baa(struct foo *f, short cc) { f->c = cc; } > > > > becomes (arm-linux-gcc -mcpu=arm6): > > > > > baa: > > > mov r3, r1, lsr #8 > > > strb r3, [r0, #3] > > > strb r1, [r0, #2] > > > mov pc, lr > > > > note the two single-byte stores, as ARM6 didn't have the "store > > halfword" instruction. > > > > So I think Alan Stern's > > "For all properly-aligned pointer and integral types other than long > > long..." > > should be amended to > > "For all properly-aligned pointer and integral types other than short or > > long long..." > > Well, perhaps it's sufficient to document just pointers? In fact this is what > RCU relies on. One can do RCU on array indexes (ints/longs) as well as pointers, so we need to keep "integral" in there. 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/