On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:

quoted

No code does (or would do, or should do):

	x.counter++;

on an "atomic_t x;" anyway.

That's just an example of a general problem.

No, you don't use "x.counter++". But you *do* use

	if (atomic_read(&x) <= 1)

and loading into a register is stupid and pointless, when you could just 
do it as a regular memory-operand to the cmp instruction.

True, but that makes this a bad/poor code generation issue with the
compiler, not something that affects the _correctness_ of atomic ops if
"volatile" is used for that counter object (as was suggested), because
we'd always use the atomic_inc() etc primitives to do increments, which
are always (should be!) implemented to be atomic.

And as far as the compiler is concerned, the problem is the 100% same: 
combining operations with the volatile memop.

The fact is, a compiler that thinks that

	movl mem,reg
	cmpl $val,reg

is any better than

	cmpl $val,mem

is just not a very good compiler.

Absolutely, this is definitely a bug report worth opening with gcc. And
what you've said to explain this previously sounds definitely correct --
seeing "volatile" for any access does appear to just scare the hell out
of gcc and makes it generate such (poor) code.


Satyam