[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1913.69.2.248.210.1218124373.squirrel@webmail.wolfmountaingroup.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 09:52:53 -0600 (MDT)
From: jmerkey@...fmountaingroup.com
To: "Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: jmerkey@...fmountaingroup.com, "Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Jason Wessel" <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
"Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
"Geert Uytterhoeven" <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
"Stefan Richter" <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
"Josh Boyer" <jwboyer@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Merkey's Kernel Debugger
>> Also, whoever wrote "/Documentation/volatiles_are_evil" must not have
>> worked with the busted-ass GNU compiler that optimizes away global
>> variables and busts SMP dependent code. I am not going to remove the
>
> The Linux way to handle this is to use gcc memory barriers.
> mb()/barrier()/wmb()/rmb()/smp_rmb()/smp_wmb() etc.
> Normally everything that volatile can do can be expressed by them.
>
> On x86 such a memory barrier tells gcc that memory might
> have been clobbered and needs to be flushed and also prevents the compiler
> from reordering memory accesses. On other architectures it also forces
> ordering
> on the CPU level, although that's not needed on x86 (except
> in some special situations like using write-combining)
>
> See Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
>
> -Andi
>
>
Andi,
I'll instrument this as described in the documentation you referenced and
remove the volatile declarations. If this passes testing, I will repost
with these corections.
Jeff
--
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