On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 05:42:07PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > Seems to me that we face greater chance of confusion without the
> > volatile than with, particularly as compiler optimizations become
> > more aggressive. Yes, we could simply disable optimization, but
> > optimization can be quite helpful.
>
> A volatile default would disable optimizations for atomic_read.
> atomic_read without volatile would allow for full optimization by the
> compiler. Seems that this is what one wants in many cases.
The volatile cast should not disable all that many optimizations,
for example, it is much less hurtful than barrier(). Furthermore,
the main optimizations disabled (pulling atomic_read() and atomic_set()
out of loops) really do need to be disabled.
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/
