[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46BB46B2.60808@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 12:54:10 -0400
From: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ak@...e.de,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, wensong@...ux-vs.org, horms@...ge.net.au,
wjiang@...ilience.com, cfriesen@...tel.com, zlynx@....org,
rpjday@...dspring.com, jesper.juhl@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently on frv
Chris Snook wrote:
> From: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
>
> Make atomic_read() volatile on frv. This ensures that busy-waiting
> for an interrupt handler to change an atomic_t won't get compiled to an
> infinite loop, consistent with SMP architectures.
To head off the criticism, I admit this is an oversimplification, and true
busy-waiters should be using cpu_relax(), which contains a barrier. As
discussed in recent threads, there are other cases which can be optimized by
removing the need for a barrier, and having behavior consistent with
architectures where the benefit is more profound is also valuable.
-- Chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists