On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Chris Snook wrote: > > What about barrier removal? With consistent semantics we could optimize a > fair amount of code. Whether or not that constitutes "premature" optimization > is open to debate, but there's no question we could reduce our register wiping > in some places. Why do people think that barriers are expensive? They really aren't. Especially the regular compiler barrier is basically zero cost. Any reasonable compiler will just flush the stuff it holds in registers that isn't already automatic local variables, and for regular kernel code, that tends to basically be nothing at all. Ie a "barrier()" is likely _cheaper_ than the code generation downside from using "volatile". Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Paul Mackerras <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Paul Mackerras <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Chris Snook <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Paul Mackerras <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Paul Mackerras <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Satyam Sharma <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Satyam Sharma <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Satyam Sharma <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Chris Snook <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Fix mainline filesystems to handle ATTR_KILL_ bits correctly
- Next by Date: Re: [linux-usb-devel] [4/4] 2.6.23-rc3: known regressions
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- Index(es):
 |