Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures

On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 05:59:41PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 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.

Understood.  My point is not that the impact is precisely zero, but
rather that the impact on optimization is much less hurtful than the
problems that could arise otherwise, particularly as compilers become
more aggressive in their optimizations.

						Thanx, Paul
-
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:
  • Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>

• References:
  • 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: Satyam Sharma <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
    • From: Stefan Richter <[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: Paul Mackerras <[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 E. McKenney" <[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 E. McKenney" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
• 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):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]