Hi!

...

...

...

...

"Sergei" == Sergei Golubchik <serg@askmonty.org> writes:

Sergei> Hi, Michael! Sergei> On Feb 11, Michael Widenius wrote:

...

Yes, but if you are only looking at one value, without regard of the other, then you don't need to use my_atomic_load32()

Sergei> if 32-bit reads are always atomic - yes. Sergei> I suppose we can assume that they are.

...

Another problem is that if the variables are related in any way, atomic_load32 is not good enough as you can get 'a' and 'b' from different instances in time.

for example:

a=b= 0;

T1: my_atomic_store32(&a, 1); T1: my_atomic_store32(&b, 2);

T2: my_atomic_store32(&a, 3); T2: my_atomic_store32(&b, 4);

T3: a1= my_atomic_load32(&a); T3: b1= my_atomic_load32(&b);

this means that you can get the following values for a1 and b1:

a1= 0 b1= 0 a1= 0 b1= 2 a1= 1 b1= 2 a1= 1 b1= 4 a1= 3 b1= 2 a1= 3 b1= 4

Sergei> and also Sergei> a1=0 b1=4 Sergei> a1=1 b1=0 ok, I missed the above one. Sergei> a1=3 b1=0 Ok, that is right. However, my intention was actually to have T2 to be T1 (ie same process), in which case this option would be impossible. Sergei> all the 9 variants are possible. Sanja, when considering the above, are you sure your usage of my_atomic_load/my_atmoic_store is correct? For example: + my_atomic_rwlock_rdlock(&soft_sync_rwl); + min= my_atomic_load32(&soft_sync_min); + max= my_atomic_load32(&soft_sync_max); + sync_request= my_atomic_load32(&soft_need_sync); + my_atomic_store32(&soft_sync_min, max); + my_atomic_store32(&soft_need_sync, 0); + my_atomic_rwlock_rdunlock(&soft_sync_rwl); In the above code, there is no gurantee that you read or write related soft_sync_min and soft_sync_max values. (See above table). Also, as we concluded with Sergei, any code like: + my_atomic_rwlock_rdlock(&soft_sync_rwl); + min= my_atomic_load32(&soft_sync_min); + my_atomic_rwlock_rdunlock(&soft_sync_rwl); There is no reason to have an my_atomic_rwlock instruction. Regards, Monty