On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> The "(1<<PG_bitshift)" part of it is done, sure; but I've rechecked
> activate_page_nolock() compiled -O2 -march=i686 with egcs-2.91.66 (RH7.0
> kgcc), gcc-2.96-69 (RH7.0 gcc+fixes), gcc-2.97 (gcc-snapshot-20010207-1).
>
> None of those optimizes this: I believe the semantics of "||" (don't
> try next test if first succeeds) forbid the optimization "|" gives?
No. The optimization is entirely legal - but the fact that
"constant_test_bit()" uses a "volatile unsigned int *" is the reason why
gcc thinks it can't optimize it.
Oh, well. That "volatile" is really totally bogus. But it's there because
there are probably drivers that do
while (test_bit(...))
/* nothing */;
and the compiler woul doptimize it away a bit too much without the
volatile. Dang.
You could try to remove the volatile from test_bit, and see if that fixes
it - but then we'd have to find and add the proper "rmb()" calls to people
who do the endless loop kind of thing like above.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 07 2001 - 21:00:28 EST