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

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> One of the gcc guys claimed that he thought that the two-instruction
> sequence would be faster on some x86 machines.  I pointed out that
> there might be a concern about code size.  I chose not to point out
> that people might also care about the other x86 machines.  ;-)

Some (very few) x86 uarchs do tend to prefer "load-store" like code 
generation, and doing a "mov [mem],reg + op reg" instead of "op [mem]" can 
actually be faster on some of them. Not any that are relevant today, 
though.

Also, that has nothing to do with volatile, and should be controlled by 
optimization flags (like -mtune). In fact, I thought there was a separate 
flag to do that (ie something like "-mload-store"), but I can't find it, 
so maybe that's just my fevered brain..

			Linus
-
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: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
    • From: Nick Piggin <[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: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[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: Herbert Xu <[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: Satyam Sharma <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
    • From: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/5] exec: kill unsafe BUG_ON(sig->count) checks
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 2/5] exec: simplify ->sighand switching
• 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]