[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Paul E. McKenney
<> wrote:
> 3. The comparison was against another RCU-protected pointer,
> where that other pointer was properly fetched using one
> of the RCU primitives. Here it doesn't matter which pointer
> you use. At least as long as the rcu_assign_pointer() for
> that other pointer happened after the last update to the
> pointed-to structure.
> I am a bit nervous about #3. Any thoughts on it?

I think that it might be worth pointing out as an example, and saying
that code like

p = atomic_read(consume);
q = atomic_read(consume);
if (p == q)
data = p->val;

then the access of "p->val" is constrained to be data-dependent on
*either* p or q, but you can't really tell which, since the compiler
can decide that the values are interchangeable.

I cannot for the life of me come up with a situation where this would
matter, though. If "X" contains a fence, then that fence will be a
stronger ordering than anything the consume through "p" would
guarantee anyway. And if "X" does *not* contain a fence, then the
atomic reads of p and q are unordered *anyway*, so then whether the
ordering to the access through "p" is through p or q is kind of
irrelevant. No?


 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-27 21:21    [W:0.300 / U:2.580 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site