On Monday 10 September 2007 15:51, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
quoted text
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:56:29 +0100
> Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Well, if you insist on having it again:
> > 
> > Waiting for atomic value to be zero:
> > 
> >         while (atomic_read(&x))
> >                 continue;
> > 
> 
> and this I would say is buggy code all the way.
>
> Not from a pure C level semantics, but from a "busy waiting is buggy"
> semantics level and a "I'm inventing my own locking" semantics level.

After inspecting arch/*, I cannot agree with you.
Otherwise almost all major architectures use
"conceptually buggy busy-waiting":

arch/alpha
arch/i386
arch/ia64
arch/m32r
arch/mips
arch/parisc
arch/powerpc
arch/sh
arch/sparc64
arch/um
arch/x86_64

All of the above contain busy-waiting on atomic_read.

Including these loops without barriers:

arch/mips/kernel/smtc.c
			while (atomic_read(&idle_hook_initialized) < 1000)
				;
arch/mips/sgi-ip27/ip27-nmi.c
	while (atomic_read(&nmied_cpus) != num_online_cpus());

[Well maybe num_online_cpus() is a barrier, I didn't check]

arch/sh/kernel/smp.c
	if (wait)
		while (atomic_read(&smp_fn_call.finished) != (nr_cpus - 1));

Bugs?
--
vda
-
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/