[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18115.44462.622801.683446@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:51:42 +1000
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>,
Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <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,
segher@...nel.crashing.org,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all
architectures
Christoph Lameter writes:
> A volatile default would disable optimizations for atomic_read.
> atomic_read without volatile would allow for full optimization by the
> compiler. Seems that this is what one wants in many cases.
Name one such case.
An atomic_read should do a load from memory. If the programmer puts
an atomic_read() in the code then the compiler should emit a load for
it, not re-use a value returned by a previous atomic_read. I do not
believe it would ever be useful for the compiler to collapse two
atomic_read statements into a single load.
Paul.
-
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