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

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 04:38:54AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Chris Snook wrote:
> > 
> > > This patchset makes the behavior of atomic_read uniform by removing the
> > > volatile keyword from all atomic_t and atomic64_t definitions that currently
> > > have it, and instead explicitly casts the variable as volatile in
> > > atomic_read().  This leaves little room for creative optimization by the
> > > compiler, and is in keeping with the principles behind "volatile considered
> > > harmful".
> > 
> > volatile is generally harmful even in atomic_read(). Barriers control
> > visibility and AFAICT things are fine.
> 
> Frankly, I don't see the need for this series myself either. Personal
> opinion (others may differ), but I consider "volatile" to be a sad /
> unfortunate wart in C (numerous threads on this list and on the gcc
> lists/bugzilla over the years stand testimony to this) and if we _can_
> steer clear of it, then why not -- why use this ill-defined primitive
> whose implementation has often differed over compiler versions and
> platforms? Granted, barrier() _is_ heavy-handed in that it makes the
> optimizer forget _everything_, but then somebody did post a forget()
> macro on this thread itself ...
> 
> [ BTW, why do we want the compiler to not optimize atomic_read()'s in
>   the first place? Atomic ops guarantee atomicity, which has nothing
>   to do with "volatility" -- users that expect "volatility" from
>   atomic ops are the ones who must be fixed instead, IMHO. ]

Interactions between mainline code and interrupt/NMI handlers on the same
CPU (for example, when both are using per-CPU variables.  See examples
previously posted in this thread, or look at the rcu_read_lock() and
rcu_read_unlock() implementations in http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/7/280.

						Thanx, Paul