lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] micro-opt DEBUG_ADD_PAGE
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Stephen Wille Padnos wrote:

> "Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Stephen Wille Padnos wrote:
> >
> > > "Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > Another problem with 'volatile' has to do with pointers. When
> > > > it's possible for some object to be modified by some external
> > > > influence, we see:
> > > >
> > > > volatile struct whatever *ptr;
> > > >
> > > > Now, it's unclear if gcc knows that we don't give a damn about
> > > > the address contained in 'ptr'. We know that it's not going to
> > > > change. What we are concerned with are the items within the
> > > > 'struct whatever'. From what I've seen, gcc just reloads the
> > > > pointer.
> > > >
> [snip]
>
> > Yes. My point is that a lot of authors have declared just about everything
> > 'volatile' `grep volatile /usr/src/linux/drivers/net/*.c`, just to
> > be "safe". It's likely that there are many hundreds of thousands of
> > unneeded register-reloads because of this.
> >
> > It might be useful for somebody who has a lot of time on his/her
> > hands to go through some of these drivers.
>
> I would be willing to do this (on the slow boat - I don't have THAT much
> spare time :), but only if we can be sure that the gcc optimizer will
> correctly handle a normal pointer to volatile data. Your experiences
> would seem to indicate that the optimizer needs fixing before much
> effort should be spent on this.
>

Well the question for that is; "What compiler?". I'm currently
using egcs-2.91.66, one of the "approved" versions for compiling
the kernel. It treats all volatiles about the same:


volatile int i;
volatile int *p;
int volatile *q;
volatile int * volatile r;

void foo()
{
while(*p == i)
;
while(*q == i)
;
while(*r == i)
;
}
...makes :


.file "main.c"
.version "01.01"
gcc2_compiled.:
.text
.align 4
.globl foo
.type foo,@function
foo:
pushl %ebp
movl %esp,%ebp
nop
.align 4
.L2:
movl p,%eax
movl (%eax),%edx
movl i,%eax
cmpl %eax,%edx
je .L4
jmp .L3
.align 4
.L4:
jmp .L2
.align 4
.L3:
nop
.align 4
.L5:
movl q,%eax
movl (%eax),%edx
movl i,%eax
cmpl %eax,%edx
je .L7
jmp .L6
.align 4
.L7:
jmp .L5
.align 4
.L6:
nop
.align 4
.L8:
movl r,%eax
movl (%eax),%edx
movl i,%eax
cmpl %eax,%edx
je .L10
jmp .L9
.align 4
.L10:
jmp .L8
.align 4
.L9:
.L1:
movl %ebp,%esp
popl %ebp
ret
.Lfe1:
.size foo,.Lfe1-foo
.comm i,4,4
.comm p,4,4
.comm q,4,4
.comm r,4,4
.ident "GCC: (GNU) egcs-2.91.66 19990314 (egcs-1.1.2 release)"


Since there seems to be a rather big difference between what is
expected to be done, and what happens to be the result, this
certainly contributes to the possible over-use of 'volatile' in
some kernel code.

It's certainly better to be safe than sorry, but in some cases "safe"
is just a bit "strange". FYI, ../linux/drivers/net/atp.c doesn't use
'volatile' at all. However, ../linux/drivers/net/bmac.c uses it 40
times. I'll bet a buck that both of the drivers work and the one
without 'volatile' keywords does the work with fewer instructions.

These are just two drivers chosen at random. The driver I've been
working on to make 'bullet proof', pcnet32.c uses 'volatile' twice.
And, at least in one occasion, the wrong thing is declared volatile
(the value in a pointer to a structure ), however gcc doesn't seem
to care because it reloads the values of the structure members every time,
anyway. So, in this case, the address-value in the pointer will never
change, but gcc reloads all the pointed-to members anyway, so the
'volatile' keyword not useful.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson

Penguin : Linux version 2.4.1 on an i686 machine (799.53 BogoMips).

"Memory is like gasoline. You use it up when you are running. Of
course you get it all back when you reboot..."; Actual explanation
obtained from the Micro$oft help desk.


-
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 13:08    [W:0.034 / U:19.580 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site