[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:0.304 / U:4.672 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site