On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 08:54:46AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
quoted text
> Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > cpu_relax() contains a barrier, so it should do the right thing.  For 
> > non-smp architectures, I'm concerned about interacting with interrupt 
> > handlers.  Some drivers do use atomic_* operations.
> 
> What problems with interrupt handlers? Access to int/long must
> be atomic or we're in big trouble anyway.

Reordering due to compiler optimizations.  CPU reordering does not
affect interactions with interrupt handlers on a given CPU, but
reordering due to compiler code-movement optimization does.  Since
volatile can in some cases suppress code-movement optimizations,
it can affect interactions with interrupt handlers.

						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/