Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3

On 5/12/07, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
>> + - Pointers to data structures in coherent memory which might be
>> modified
>> + by I/O devices can, sometimes, legitimately be volatile. A ring
>> buffer
>> + used by a network adapter, where that adapter changes pointers to
>> + indicate which descriptors have been processed, is an example of
>> this
>> + type of situation.
>
> is a legitimate use case for volatile is still not clear to me (I
> agree with Alan's
> comment in a previous thread that this seems to be a case where a memory
> barrier would be applicable^Wbetter, actually). I could be wrong here, so
> would be nice if Peter explains why volatile is legitimate here.
>
> Otherwise, it's fine with me.
>

I don't see why Alan's way is necessarily better;

Because volatile is ill-defined? Or actually, *undefined* (well,
implementation-defined is as good as that)? It's *so* _vague_,
one doesn't _feel_ like using it at all!

We already have a complete API containing optimization barriers,
load/store/full memory barriers. With well-defined and
well-understood semantics. Just ... _why_ use volatile?

it should work but is

It will _always_ work. In fact you can't really say the same for
volatile. We already assume the compiler _actually_ took some
pains to stuff meaning into C's (lack of) definition of volatile and
implement it -- but in what sense, nobody knows (the C standard
doesn't, so what are we).

more heavy-handed as it's disabling *all* optimization such as loop
invariants across the barrier.

This is a legitimate criticism, I agree.

Thanks,
Satyam
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
    ... by I/O devices can, sometimes, legitimately be volatile. ... where that adapter changes pointers to ... would be nice if Peter explains why volatile is legitimate here. ... invariants across the barrier. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [PATCH] remove volatile from nmi.c
    ... "volatile" is not a sign that a barrier is needed per se. ... fundamental problems. ... than it is to just remove them outright. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Memory barrier note
    ... He needs a read barrier to do it that way or just ... Exploring the Singleton Design Pattern ... I think the implementation without using volatile is missing one memory ... memory barriers are required for both read and write code paths. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: [patch] spinlocks: remove volatile
    ... because if the compiler re-orders your loads/stores ... In these cases, you can use a barrier, a volatile ... A volatile cast lets you prevent the compiler from always treating the ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Newbie question: accessing global variable on multiprocessor
    ... barrier - and disables any compiler optimizations - in VC++ 2005), ... memory barrier at all on VC++2005. ... you not going to see naked ld/st instructions when your load/store to a volatile variable. ...
    (comp.programming.threads)