On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 03:56:51PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Chris Snook wrote:
>
> > > volatile means that there is some vague notion of "read it now". But that
> > > really does not exist. Instead we control visibility via barriers
> > > (smp_wmb,
> > > smp_rmb). Would it not be best to not have volatile at all in atomic
> > > operations and let the barriers do the work?
> >
> > From my reply in the other thread...
> >
> > But barriers force a flush of *everything* in scope, which we generally
> > don't
> > want. On the other hand, we pretty much always want to flush atomic_*
> > operations. One way or another, we should be restricting the volatile
> > behavior to the thing that needs it. On most architectures, this patch set
> > just moves that from the declaration, where it is considered harmful, to the
> > use, where it is considered an occasional necessary evil.
> >
> > If you really, *really* distrust the compiler that much, you shouldn't be
> > using barrier, since that uses volatile under the hood too. You should just
> > go ahead and implement the atomic operations in assembler, like Segher
> > Boessenkool did for powerpc in response to my previous patchset.
>
> >From my reply on the other thread:
>
> Maybe we need two read functions? One volatile, one not?
>
> The atomic_read()s that I have in slub really do not care about when the
> variables are read. And if volatile creates overhead then I rather not have
> it.
The overhead due to volatile access is -way- small. Not like barrier(),
which can flush out a fair fraction of the machine registers.
Thanx, Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
