Re: [PATCH 6/8] i386: bitops: Don't mark memory as clobberedunnecessarily

[Satyam Sharma]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:

> Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > From: Satyam Sharma <ssatyam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > [6/8] i386: bitops: Don't mark memory as clobbered unnecessarily
> > 
> > The goal is to let gcc generate good, beautiful, optimized code.
> > 
> > But test_and_set_bit, test_and_clear_bit, __test_and_change_bit,
> > and test_and_change_bit unnecessarily mark all of memory as clobbered,
> > thereby preventing gcc from doing perfectly valid optimizations.
> > 
> > The case of __test_and_change_bit() is particularly surprising, given
> > that it's a variant where we don't make any guarantees at all.
> 
> __test_and_change_bit is one that you could remove the memory clobber
> from.

Yes, for the atomic versions we don't care if we're asking gcc to
generate trashy code (even though I'd have wanted to only disallow
problematic optimizations -- ones involving the passed bit-string
address -- there, and allow other memory references to be optimized
as and how the compiler feels like it) because the atomic variants
are slow anyway and we probably want to be extra-safe there.

But for the non-atomic variants, it does make sense to remove the
memory clobber (and the unneeded __asm__ __volatile__ that another
patch did -- for the non-atomic variants, again).

OTOH, as per Linus' review it seems we can drop the "memory" clobber
and specify the output operand for the extended asm as "+m". But I
must admit I didn't quite understand that at all.

[ I should probably start reading gcc sources, the docs are said to
  be insufficient/out-of-date, as per the reviews of the patches. ]


Satyam
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/