documentation: Additional restriction for control dependencies
Short-circuit booleans are not defences against compilers breaking your intended control dependencies. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
74860feed5
commit
8b19d1dead
|
@ -694,6 +694,24 @@ Please note once again that the stores to 'b' differ. If they were
|
|||
identical, as noted earlier, the compiler could pull this store outside
|
||||
of the 'if' statement.
|
||||
|
||||
You must also be careful not to rely too much on boolean short-circuit
|
||||
evaluation. Consider this example:
|
||||
|
||||
q = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
|
||||
if (a || 1 > 0)
|
||||
ACCESS_ONCE(b) = 1;
|
||||
|
||||
Because the second condition is always true, the compiler can transform
|
||||
this example as following, defeating control dependency:
|
||||
|
||||
q = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
|
||||
ACCESS_ONCE(b) = 1;
|
||||
|
||||
This example underscores the need to ensure that the compiler cannot
|
||||
out-guess your code. More generally, although ACCESS_ONCE() does force
|
||||
the compiler to actually emit code for a given load, it does not force
|
||||
the compiler to use the results.
|
||||
|
||||
Finally, control dependencies do -not- provide transitivity. This is
|
||||
demonstrated by two related examples, with the initial values of
|
||||
x and y both being zero:
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue