quoted

Right. ROTFL... volatile actually breaks atomic_t instead of making 
it safe. x++ becomes a register load, increment and a register store. 
Without volatile we can increment the memory directly. It seems that 
volatile requires that the variable is loaded into a register first 
and then operated upon. Understandable when you think about volatile 
being used to access memory mapped I/O registers where a RMW 
operation could be problematic.

So, if we want consistent behavior, we're pretty much screwed unless 
we use inline assembler everywhere?

Nah, this whole argument is flawed -- "without volatile" we still
*cannot* "increment the memory directly".  On x86, you need a lock
prefix; on other archs, some other mechanism to make the memory
increment an *atomic* memory increment.

And no, RMW on MMIO isn't "problematic" at all, either.

An RMW op is a read op, a modify op, and a write op, all rolled
into one opcode.  But three actual operations.


The advantages of asm code for atomic_{read,set} are:
1) all the other atomic ops are implemented that way already;
2) you have full control over the asm insns selected, in particular,
    you can guarantee you *do* get an atomic op;
3) you don't need to use "volatile <data>" which generates
    not-all-that-good code on archs like x86, and we want to get rid
    of it anyway since it is problematic in many ways;
4) you don't need to use *(volatile <type>*)&<data>, which a) doesn't
    exist in C; b) isn't documented or supported in GCC; c) has a recent
    history of bugginess; d) _still uses volatile objects_; e) _still_
    is problematic in almost all those same ways as in 3);
5) you can mix atomic and non-atomic accesses to the atomic_t, which
    you cannot with the other alternatives.

The only disadvantage I know of is potentially slightly worse
instruction scheduling.  This is a generic asm() problem: GCC
cannot see what actual insns are inside the asm() block.


Segher