From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Subject: Re: My turn to rant about types... bitops
Date: 06 Oct 2005 15:39:53 +0200
Message-ID: <p73achmzrva.fsf@verdi.suse.de>
References: <139052B3-308D-4B5F-9836-16F316A88398@watson.ibm.com>
	<9b50cd44c3f828463b6fa01170382dd4@cl.cam.ac.uk>
	<FFC5FB0D-2386-4617-827A-4153E331586A@watson.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <FFC5FB0D-2386-4617-827A-4153E331586A@watson.ibm.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Jimi Xenidis <jimix@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: rusty@rustcorp.com.au, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Jimi Xenidis <jimix@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> The next request is really the jist of what we are after, doing 64bit
> operations 32bit aligned data kills us performance wise and WRT
> bitops cannot be used for atomic ops. If htis was just Xen I'd
> consider adding 32bit bitops but I doubt I'd be able to do that in
> Linux which does not provide "u32" bitops.

Actually it does - when the arch has ARCH_HAS_ATOMIC_UNSIGNED set
it's allowed with the normal bitops.
 
> IIRC assuring this alignement would even help x86, no?

I doubt it (unless you're straddling a cache line) 

-Andi