Re: [PATCH] x86 bitops.h commentary on instruction reordering

[Vladislav Bolkhovitin]

Andi Kleen wrote:
> That makes them a *lot* slower on some systems. And most of the
> set_bits in the kernel don't need strong ordering.
>
>
> > difference with versions with `__` prefix (__set_bit(), for example)?
> > Just adding the comments will lead to creating different functions
> > with gurantees by everyone who need it in all over the kernel. Is it
> > the right thing? In some places in SCST we heavy rely on non-ordering
> > guarantees.
>
>
> Better add lots of memory barriers then.

It looks like we have to do that now.

Thanks,
Vlad
-
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/