lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Dec]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateSun, 31 Dec 2000 20:07:41 +0200
FromMatti Aarnio <>
SubjectRe: test13-pre5
On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 09:27:23AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2000, Andi Kleen wrote:> > > > Sounds good. It could also be controlled by a CONFIG_SPACE_EFFICIENT for
> > embedded systems, where you could trade a bit of CPU for less memory overhead 
> > even on systems where u8 is slow and atomicity doesn't come into play
> > because it's UP anyways. > > UP has nothing to do with it.> The alpha systems I remember this problem on were all SMP.

	Actually nothing SMP specific in that problem sphere.
	Alpha has  load-locked/store-conditional  pair for
	this type of memory accesses to automatically detect,
	and (conditionally) restart the operation - to form
	classical  ``locked-read-modify-write'' operations.

	In what situations the compiler will use those instructions,
	that I don't know.   Volatiles, very least, use them.
	Will closely packed bytes be processed with it without
	them being volatiles ?  How about bitfields ?

	Newer Alphas have byte/short load/store instructions,
	so things really aren't that straight-forward...

....
> I don't think it's a good diea.
> 		Linus

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [from the cache]
©2003-2008