lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 6/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently on frv
Date
Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 08:54:46AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
>> Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > cpu_relax() contains a barrier, so it should do the right thing. For
>> > non-smp architectures, I'm concerned about interacting with interrupt
>> > handlers. Some drivers do use atomic_* operations.
>>
>> What problems with interrupt handlers? Access to int/long must
>> be atomic or we're in big trouble anyway.
>
> Reordering due to compiler optimizations. CPU reordering does not
> affect interactions with interrupt handlers on a given CPU, but
> reordering due to compiler code-movement optimization does. Since
> volatile can in some cases suppress code-movement optimizations,
> it can affect interactions with interrupt handlers.

If such reordering matters, then you should use one of the
*mb macros or barrier() rather than relying on possibly
hidden volatile cast.

Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-08-13 07:19    [W:0.067 / U:0.468 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site