Re: [IA64] Reduce __clear_bit_unlock overhead

From: Christoph Lameter <clameter_at_sgi.com>
Date: 2007-10-19 20:58:08
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Zoltan Menyhart wrote:

> You may want to avoid assembly magics:
> 
> static __inline__ void
> __clear_bit_unlock(int const nr, volatile void * const addr)
> {
>        volatile __u32 * const m = (volatile __u32 *) addr + (nr >> 5);
> 
>        *m &= ~(1 << (nr & 0x1f));
> }
> 
> GCC compiles volatile loads with ".acq" and stores with ".rel".

But gcc does not generate the .nta type of store.

> Cannot we have some "speaking names"? E.g.: bit_unlock_Natomic_rel()

The convention is that __xxx is the non atomic variant.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Fri Oct 19 20:58:26 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2007-10-19 20:58:39 EST