On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 05:36:13PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
quoted text
> On 08/17/2010 06:24 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> >> --(t->rcu_read_lock_nesting)
> >>
> >> could be split in two distinct operations:
> >>
> >> read t->rcu_read_lock_nesting
> >> decrement t->rcu_read_lock_nesting
> >>
> >> Note that in order to know the result required to pass the sequence
> >> point "&&" (the test), we only need to perform the read, not the
> >> decrement. AFAIU, gcc would be in its rights to move the
> >> t->rcu_read_lock_nesting update after the volatile access.
> > 
> > I will run this by some compiler experts.
> 
> We can just use "read and decrement statements" instead of "--" to
> avoid dependency from compilers.

You mean something like local_add_return()?  This turns into
atomic_add_return() on many platforms, including x86 as it turns out,
so I am reluctant to use it.

If you had something else in mind, please don't keep it a secret!

							Thanx, 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/