![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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 | |||||||||||||