[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
    From: Linus Torvalds <>
    Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:46:47 -0700 (PDT)

    > Ie a "barrier()" is likely _cheaper_ than the code generation downside
    > from using "volatile".

    Assuming GCC were ever better about the code generation badness
    with volatile that has been discussed here, I much prefer
    we tell GCC "this memory piece changed" rather than "every
    piece of memory has changed" which is what the barrier() does.

    I happened to have been scanning a lot of assembler lately to
    track down a gcc-4.2 miscompilation on sparc64, and the barriers
    do hurt quite a bit in some places. Instead of keeping unrelated
    variables around cached in local registers, it reloads everything.
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-08-21 09:07    [W:5.156 / U:0.316 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site