Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4

On Fri, 2005-12-23 at 15:57, Russell King wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 06:51:18AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Nicolas Pitre <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > How can't you get the fact that semaphores could _never_ be as simple as 
> > > mutexes?  This is a theoritical impossibility, which maybe turns out not 
> > > to be so true on x86, but which is damn true on ARM where the fast path 
> > > (the common case of a mutex) is significantly more efficient.
> > 
> > I did notice your comments.  I'll grant that mutexes will save some tens of
> > fastpath cycles on one minor architecture.  Sorry, but that doesn't seem
> > very important.
> 
> Wow.

Yes, wow. Andrew doesn't seem aware of embedded linux people, for whom
cycles are important and ARM is king.

	Xav


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

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
    • From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
    • From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
    • From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
    • From: Nicolas Pitre <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
    • From: Russell King <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] fix posix lock on NFS, #2
• Next by Date: Re: nfs invalidates lose pte dirty bits
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
• Next by thread: Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]