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

[Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>]

Linus Torvalds writes:

> In general, I'd *much* rather we used barriers. Anything that "depends" on 
> volatile is pretty much set up to be buggy. But I'm certainly also willing 
> to have that volatile inside "atomic_read/atomic_set()" if it avoids code 
> that would otherwise break - ie if it hides a bug.

The cost of doing so seems to me to be well down in the noise - 44
bytes of extra kernel text on a ppc64 G5 config, and I don't believe
the extra few cycles for the occasional extra load would be measurable
(they should all hit in the L1 dcache).  I don't mind if x86[-64] have
atomic_read/set be nonvolatile and find all the missing barriers, but
for now on powerpc, I think that not having to find those missing
barriers is worth the 0.00076% increase in kernel text size.

Paul.
-
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/