On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 12:49:00PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:

On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 12:49 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

What about reading values modified in interrupt handlers, as in your 
"random" case?  Or is this a bug where the user of atomic_read() is 
invalidly expecting a read each time it is called?

the interrupt handler case is an SMP case since you do not know
beforehand what cpu your interrupt handler will run on.

With the exception of per-CPU variables, yes.

if you're spinning waiting for a per-CPU variable to get changed by an
interrupt handler... you have bigger problems than "volatile" ;-)

That would be true, if you were doing that.  But you might instead be
simply making sure that the mainline actions were seen in order by the
interrupt handler.  My current example is the NMI-save rcu_read_lock()
implementation for realtime.  Not the common case, I will admit, but
still real.  ;-)

						Thanx, Paul