On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 06:41:40PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > Understood. My point is not that the impact is precisely zero, but
> > rather that the impact on optimization is much less hurtful than the
> > problems that could arise otherwise, particularly as compilers become
> > more aggressive in their optimizations.
>
> The problems arise because barriers are not used as required. Volatile
> has wishy washy semantics and somehow marries memory barriers with data
> access. It is clearer to separate the two. Conceptual cleanness usually
> translates into better code. If one really wants the volatile then lets
> make it explicit and use
>
> atomic_read_volatile()
There are indeed architectures where you can cause gcc to emit memory
barriers in response to volatile. I am assuming that we are -not-
making gcc do this. Given this, then volatiles and memory barrier
instructions are orthogonal -- one controls the compiler, the other
controls the CPU.
Thanx, Paul
-
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
