On 09/04/2014 12:50 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: >> Besides updating the documentation, it may make sense to do something >> arch-specific. Just bumping out storage on arches that don't need it >> seems wasteful, as does generating bus locks on arches that don't need it. >> Unfortunately, the code churn looks unavoidable. > > The arch specific is pretty much set_bit and friends. Bus locks on a > locally owned cache line should not be very expensive on anything vaguely > modern, while uniprocessor boxes usually only have to generate set_bit > as a single instruction so it is interrupt safe.
Or we could give up on the Alpha. It's not just the non-atomic bytes; we could do away with the read_barrier_depends() which hardly any code gets correctly anyway. Regards, Peter Hurley _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
