On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Chris Snook wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > > The only safe way to get atomic accesses is to write
> > > > assembler code. Are there any downsides to that? I don't
> > > > see any.
> > >
> > > The assumption that aligned word reads and writes are atomic, and that
> > > words are aligned unless explicitly packed otherwise, is endemic in the
> > > kernel. No sane compiler violates this assumption. It's true that we're
> > > not portable to insane compilers after this patch, but we never were in
> > > the first place.
> >
> > You didn't answer my question: are there any downsides to using
> > explicit coded-in-assembler accesses for atomic accesses? You
> > can handwave all you want that it should "just work" with
> > volatile accesses, but volatility != atomicity, volatile in C
> > is really badly defined, GCC never officially gave stronger
> > guarantees, and we have a bugzilla full of PRs to show what a
> > minefield it is.
> >
> > So, why not use the well-defined alternative?
>
> Because we don't need to, and it hurts performance.
It hurts performance by implementing 32-bit atomic reads in assembler?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
