lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: memory barrier question
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 07:49:08AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > Right but in the concrete namei example I can't see how a compiler
> > optimization can make a difference. The order of the loads is quite
> > clear:
> >
> > LOAD inode = next.dentry->inode
> > if (inode != NULL)
> > LOAD inode->f_op
> >
> > What is there the compiler can optimize?
>
> Those two loads depend on each other, I don't think any implementation
> can re-order them. In fact, such data dependency is typically what is
> used to avoid having barriers in some cases. The second load cannot be
> issued until the value from the first one is returned.

Sufficiently sadistic compiler and CPU implementations could do value
speculation, for example, driven by profile-feedback optimization.
Then the guess might initially incorrect, but then a store by some other
CPU could make the subsequent test decide (wrongly) that the guess had
in fact been correct.

Needless to say, I am not a fan of value speculation. But other people
do like it a lot.

Thanx, Paul


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-09-18 01:15    [W:0.238 / U:0.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site