On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 3:28 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 03:14:09PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > > > Even without atomicity guarantee, __READ_ONCE() still prevents the > > > > compiler from performing unwanted optimizations (please see the first > > > > comment in include/asm-generic/rwonce.h) and unwanted reordering of > > > > reads and writes when this function is inlined. This macro does cast > > > > the read to volatile, but IMO it is much more readable to use > > > > __READ_ONCE() than volatile qualifier. > > > > > > Yes it does, but please explain to me what "unwanted reordering" is > > > allowed here? > > > > It is a static function that will be inlined by the compiler > > somewhere, so "unwanted reordering" depends on where it will be > > inlined. *IF* it will be called from safe code, then this limitation > > for the compiler can be lifted. > > As long as the values are read within the spinlock the order does not > matter. READ_ONCE() is not required to contain reads within spinlocks. Indeed. But then why complicate things with cmpxchg, when we have exclusive access to the shared memory? No other thread can access the data, protected by spinlock; it won't change between invocations of cmpxchg in the loop, and atomic access via cmpxchg is not needed. Uros.
