[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100917231222.GA3060@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:12:22 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
dhowells@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: memory barrier question
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 07:49:08AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > Right but in the concrete namei example I can't see how a compiler
> > optimization can make a difference. The order of the loads is quite
> > clear:
> >
> > LOAD inode = next.dentry->inode
> > if (inode != NULL)
> > LOAD inode->f_op
> >
> > What is there the compiler can optimize?
>
> Those two loads depend on each other, I don't think any implementation
> can re-order them. In fact, such data dependency is typically what is
> used to avoid having barriers in some cases. The second load cannot be
> issued until the value from the first one is returned.
Sufficiently sadistic compiler and CPU implementations could do value
speculation, for example, driven by profile-feedback optimization.
Then the guess might initially incorrect, but then a store by some other
CPU could make the subsequent test decide (wrongly) that the guess had
in fact been correct.
Needless to say, I am not a fan of value speculation. But other people
do like it a lot.
Thanx, 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