Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures

[Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>]

Satyam Sharma wrote:

>
>On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>
>>Satyam Sharma wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>>
>>>>Satyam Sharma wrote:
>>>>
>>>>It is very obvious. msleep calls schedule() (ie. sleeps), which is
>>>>always a barrier.
>>>>
>>>Probably you didn't mean that, but no, schedule() is not barrier because
>>>it sleeps. It's a barrier because it's invisible.
>>>
>>Where did I say it is a barrier because it sleeps?
>>
>
>Just below. What you wrote:
>
>
>>It is always a barrier because, at the lowest level, schedule() (and thus
>>anything that sleeps) is defined to always be a barrier.
>>
>
>"It is always a barrier because, at the lowest level, anything that sleeps
>is defined to always be a barrier".
>

... because it must call schedule and schedule is a barrier.


>>Regardless of
>>whatever obscure means the compiler might need to infer the barrier.
>>
>>In other words, you can ignore those obscure details because schedule() is
>>always going to have an explicit barrier in it.
>>
>
>I didn't quite understand what you said here, so I'll tell what I think:
>
>* foo() is a compiler barrier if the definition of foo() is invisible to
>  the compiler at a callsite.
>
>* foo() is also a compiler barrier if the definition of foo() includes
>  a barrier, and it is inlined at the callsite.
>
>If the above is wrong, or if there's something else at play as well,
>do let me know.
>

Right.


>>>>The "unobvious" thing is that you wanted to know how the compiler knows
>>>>a function is a barrier -- answer is that if it does not *know* it is not
>>>>a barrier, it must assume it is a barrier.
>>>>
>>>True, that's clearly what happens here. But are you're definitely joking
>>>that this is "obvious" in terms of code-clarity, right?
>>>
>>No. If you accept that barrier() is implemented correctly, and you know
>>that sleeping is defined to be a barrier,
>>
>
>Curiously, that's the second time you've said "sleeping is defined to
>be a (compiler) barrier".
>

_In Linux,_ sleeping is defined to be a compiler barrier.

>How does the compiler even know if foo() is
>a function that "sleeps"? Do compilers have some notion of "sleeping"
>to ensure they automatically assume a compiler barrier whenever such
>a function is called? Or are you saying that the compiler can see the
>barrier() inside said function ... nopes, you're saying quite the
>opposite below.
>

You're getting too worried about the compiler implementation. Start
by assuming that it does work ;)


>>then its perfectly clear. You
>>don't have to know how the compiler "knows" that some function contains
>>a barrier.
>>
>
>I think I do, why not? Would appreciate if you could elaborate on this.
>

If a function is not completely visible to the compiler (so it can't
determine whether a barrier could be in it or not), then it must always
assume it will contain a barrier so it always does the right thing.