> Subject: spinlocks: remove 'volatile'
> From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
>
> remove 'volatile' from the spinlock types, it causes gcc to
> generate really bad code. (and it's pointless anyway)
>
> this reduces the non-debug SMP kernel's size by 0.2% (!).
>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
> ---
> include/asm-i386/spinlock_types.h | 4 ++--
> include/asm-x86_64/spinlock_types.h | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux/include/asm-i386/spinlock_types.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/include/asm-i386/spinlock_types.h
> +++ linux/include/asm-i386/spinlock_types.h
> @@ -6,13 +6,13 @@
> #endif
>
> typedef struct {
> - volatile unsigned int slock;
> + unsigned int slock;
> } raw_spinlock_t;
>
> #define __RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED { 1 }
>
> typedef struct {
> - volatile unsigned int lock;
> + unsigned int lock;
> } raw_rwlock_t;
Shouldn't the __raw_read_can_lock and __raw_write_can_lock macros be changed too, just
to make sure the value gets read every single time if it's used in a loop?
Just like the __raw_spin_is_locked already has a (volatile signed char * cast)?
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
