memory-barriers: Retain barrier() in fold-to-zero example
The transformation in the fold-to-zero example incorrectly omits the barrier() directive. This commit therefore adds it back in. Reported-by: Pranith Kumar <pranith@gatech.edu> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
5646f7acc9
commit
efdcd51a4d
|
@ -679,12 +679,15 @@ equal to zero, in which case the compiler is within its rights to
|
|||
transform the above code into the following:
|
||||
|
||||
q = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
|
||||
barrier();
|
||||
ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p;
|
||||
do_something_else();
|
||||
|
||||
This transformation loses the ordering between the load from variable 'a'
|
||||
and the store to variable 'b'. If you are relying on this ordering, you
|
||||
should do something like the following:
|
||||
This transformation fails to require that the CPU respect the ordering
|
||||
between the load from variable 'a' and the store to variable 'b'.
|
||||
Yes, the barrier() is still there, but it affects only the compiler,
|
||||
not the CPU. Therefore, if you are relying on this ordering, you should
|
||||
do something like the following:
|
||||
|
||||
q = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
|
||||
BUILD_BUG_ON(MAX <= 1); /* Order load from a with store to b. */
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue