On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 06:41:40PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
quoted text
> 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
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/