[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200708151529.46780.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:29:43 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, csnook@...hat.com,
dhowells@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
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
On Wednesday 15 August 2007, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> ACCESS_ONCE() is indeed intended to be used when actually loading or
> storing the variable. That said, I must admit that it is not clear to me
> why you would want to add an extra order() rather than ACCESS_ONCE()ing
> one or both of the adjacent accesses to that same variable.
>
> So, what am I missing?
You're probably right, the only case I can construct is something like
if (ACCESS_ONCE(x)) {
...
ACCESS_ONCE(x)++;
}
which would be slightly less efficient than
if (x)
x++;
order(x);
because in the first case, you need to do two ordered accesses
but only one in the second case. However, I can't think of a case
where this actually makes a noticable difference in real life.
Arnd <><
-
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