From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 3 06:24:59 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B691416A4CE; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 06:24:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from cs.rice.edu (cs.rice.edu [128.42.1.30]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A2FC43D48; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 06:24:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from alc@cs.rice.edu) Received: from localhost (calypso.cs.rice.edu [128.42.1.127]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 226BE4A99E; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 00:24:59 -0600 (CST) Received: from cs.rice.edu ([128.42.1.30]) by localhost (calypso.cs.rice.edu [128.42.1.127]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 20165-01-69; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 00:24:58 -0600 (CST) Received: by cs.rice.edu (Postfix, from userid 19572) id 9FD1B4A99D; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 00:24:58 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 00:24:58 -0600 From: Alan Cox To: Doug White Message-ID: <20050303062458.GA15192@cs.rice.edu> References: <200503030241.j232fbCn032297@repoman.freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200503030241.j232fbCn032297@repoman.freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-2.2.1 at cs.rice.edu cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern uipc_mbuf.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 06:24:59 -0000 On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 02:41:37AM +0000, Doug White wrote: > dwhite 2005-03-03 02:41:37 UTC > > FreeBSD src repository > > Modified files: > sys/kern uipc_mbuf.c > Log: > Insert volatile cast to discourage gcc from optimizing the read outside > of the while loop. > > Suggested by: alc > MFC after: 1 day > > Revision Changes Path > 1.144 +4 -1 src/sys/kern/uipc_mbuf.c I tend to believe that the sparc64's casa() implementation is the real culprit here. Specifically, I don't believe the right asm operand constraints are being used. If I'm correct, the addition of volatile here is unnecessary. Can we hold the MFC until this hypothesis is proven or disproven? Alan