On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> When Paul reminded us of it yesterday, I came to wonder if actually
> every use of ACCESS_ONCE in the read form should strictly be matched
> by ACCESS_ONCE whenever modifying the location.
>
> My uneducated guess is that strictly it ought to, in the sense of
> insurance policy; but that (apart from that strange split writing
> issue which came up a couple of months ago) in practice our compilers
> have not "advanced" to the point of making this an issue yet.
I don't see how a compiler could reasonably really ever do anything
different, but I do think the ACCESS_ONCE() modification version might
be a good thing just as a "documentation".
This is a good example of this issue, exactly because we have a mix of
both speculative cases (the find_vma() lookup and modification)
together with strictly exclusive locked accesses to the same field
(the ones that invalidate the cache under the write lock). So
documenting that the write in find_vma() is this kind of "optimistic
unlocked access" is actually a potentially interesting piece of
information for programmers, completely independently of whether the
compiler will then treat it really differently or not.
Of course, a plain comment would do the same, but would be less greppable.
And despite the verbiage here, I don't really have a very strong
opinion on this. I'm going to let it go, and if somebody sends me a
patch with a good explanation in the next merge window, I'll probably
apply it.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>