[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708151757400.11196@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:59:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
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
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The volatile cast should not disable all that many optimizations,
> for example, it is much less hurtful than barrier(). Furthermore,
> the main optimizations disabled (pulling atomic_read() and atomic_set()
> out of loops) really do need to be disabled.
In many cases you do not need a barrier. Having volatile there *will*
impact optimization because the compiler cannot use a register that may
contain the value that was fetched earlier. And the compiler cannot choose
freely when to fetch the value. The order of memory accesses are fixed if
you use volatile. If the variable is not volatile then the compiler can
arrange memory accesses any way they fit and thus generate better code.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists