Hi,
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Monday 23 July 2007 18:06:03 Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > From: Satyam Sharma <[email protected]>
> >
> > [7/8] i386: bitops: Kill needless usage of __asm__ __volatile__
> >
> > Another oddity I noticed in this file. The semantics of __volatile__
> > when used to qualify inline __asm__ are that the compiler will not
> > (1) elid, or, (2) reorder, or, (3) intersperse, our inline asm with
> > the rest of the generated code.
> >
> > However, we do not want these guarantees in the unlocked variants of the
> > bitops functions.
>
> I thought so too and did a similar transformation while moving
> some string functions out of line. After that recent misadventure
> I would be very very careful with this.
Ah, ok, so this must be the case we'd stumbled upon recently on the
other thread. I hadn't got your fix for this, so didn't know.
> Overall I'm sorry to say, but the risk:gain ratio of this
> patch is imho totally out of whack.
The patch does look correct to me, we're only killing the use of
__volatile__ from places that don't require it (the guarantee-less
variants). Without losing it, I really don't see how the compiler
can ever combine multiple bitops, which does sound beneficial when
the caller has already implemented higher-level locking around
the usage of these operations.
Satyam
-
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]
