Satyam Sharma writes:

quoted text
> Anyway, the problem, of course, is that this conversion to a stronger /
> safer-by-default behaviour doesn't happen with zero cost to performance.
> Converting atomic ops to "volatile" behaviour did add ~2K to kernel text
> for archs such as i386 (possibly to important codepaths) that didn't have
> those semantics already so it would be constructive to actually look at
> those differences and see if there were really any heisenbugs that got
> rectified. Or if there were legitimate optimizations that got wrongly
> disabled. Onus lies on those proposing the modifications, I'd say ;-)

The uses of atomic_read where one might want it to allow caching of
the result seem to me to fall into 3 categories:

1. Places that are buggy because of a race arising from the way it's
   used.

2. Places where there is a race but it doesn't matter because we're
   doing some clever trick.

3. Places where there is some locking in place that eliminates any
   potential race.

In case 1, adding volatile won't solve the race, of course, but it's
hard to argue that we shouldn't do something because it will slow down
buggy code.  Case 2 is hopefully pretty rare and accompanied by large
comment blocks, and in those cases caching the result of atomic_read
explicitly in a local variable would probably make the code clearer.
And in case 3 there is no reason to use atomic_t at all; we might as
well just use an int.

So I don't see any good reason to make the atomic API more complex by
having "volatile" and "non-volatile" versions of atomic_read.  It
should just have the "volatile" behaviour.

Paul.
-
unsubscribe notice
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/