Re: [patch 1/2] i386: use asm() like the other atomic operations already do.

[Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com>]

Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 01:02:23PM -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
> > Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote:
> > > > > My config with march=pentium-m and gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 (Gentoo 4.1.2):
> > > > >  text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
> > > > > 3434150  249176  176128 3859454  3ae3fe atomic_normal/vmlinux
> > > > > 3435308  249176  176128 3860612  3ae884 atomic_inlineasm/vmlinux
> > > > What is the difference between atomic_normal and atomic_inlineasm? 
> > > The inline asm stops certain optimisations from occuring.
> > >
> > > I'm still unconvinced why we need this because nobody has
> > > brought up any examples of kernel code that legitimately
> > > need this.
> > There's plenty of kernel code that *wants* this though.  If we can 
>
> You keep saying this yet everytime I ask for an example I
> get nothing.

Just look for all the code (and there's an immense amount) that has a 
barrier() between two atomic_* operations, or in a loop with such 
operations.  With these patches merged, we can proceed to *remove* those 
barriers.

> > reduce the need for register-clobbering barriers, shrink our binaries, 
> > shrink our code, improve performance, and avoid heisenbugs, I think it's 
> > a win, whether or not we *need* it.
>
> Hmm, you're increasing our binary size and probably killing
> performance.

The cost of these patches themselves is negligible, since people pretty 
much always use barriers in places where it would matter.  The long-term 
benefit is that with guaranteed volatile behavior, we can go through and 
remove a whole bunch of these barriers.

	-- Chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/