atomic_set & gcc. atomicity question
From: Q?=Kirill KorotaevQ=20?= (kksx_at_mail.ru)
Date: 07/31/03
- Previous message: Pawel Kot: "Re: module-init-tools don't support gzipped modules."
- Next in thread: Raj Inguva: "Re: atomic_set & gcc. atomicity question"
- Reply: Raj Inguva: "Re: atomic_set & gcc. atomicity question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:00:06 +0400
Hi!
Thinking about atomicity of some operations in kernel I've got the following question about atomic_XXX operations.
atomic_set and atomic_read (on i386+ and some others) are simple write to and read from memory, i.e. they are defined as:
#define atomic_set(v,i) (((v)->counter) = (i))
#define atomic_read(v) ((v)->counter)
If we call atomic_set() with constant 2nd argument it's ok - it's a simple write to var. But what if we do atomic_set(var, var1+var2)?
Probably, it can happen that compiler will do "var=var1; var+=var2", can't it? If so, atomic_read() can return intermediate value and write won't seem atomic at all. Who guarentees that compiler won't compile it this way? Optimization? gcc developers?
Kirill
-
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/
- Previous message: Pawel Kot: "Re: module-init-tools don't support gzipped modules."
- Next in thread: Raj Inguva: "Re: atomic_set & gcc. atomicity question"
- Reply: Raj Inguva: "Re: atomic_set & gcc. atomicity question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|