Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch] spinlocks: remove 'volatile' | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:51:36 +0200 |
| |
On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 11:40 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Mark Lord wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm still browsing a copy here, but so far have only really found this: > > > > > > A volatile declaration may be used to describe an object corresponding > > > to a memory-mapped input/output port or an object accessed by an > > > aysnchronously interrupting function. Actions on objects so declared > > > shall not be "optimized out" by an implementation or reordered except > > > as permitted by the rules for evaluating expressions. > > > > Note that the "reordered" is totally pointless. > > > > The _hardware_ will re-order accesses. Which is the whole point. > > "volatile" is basically never sufficient in itself. > > > > So the definition of "volatile" literally made sense three or four > > decades > > ago. It's not sensible any more. > > > > It could be argued that gcc's implementation of volatile is wrong, and > that gcc should add the appropriate serializing instructions before and > after volatile accesses. > > Of course, that would make volatile even more suboptimal, but at least > correct.
with PCI, and the PCI posting rules, there is no "one" serializing instruction, you need to know the specifics of the device in question to cause the flush. So at least there is no universal possible implementation of volatile as you suggest ;-)
- 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/
| |