Am Dienstag, 6. Dezember 2005 21:13 schrieb Eduardo Pereira Habkost: > Anyway, I don't see yet why the atomic_t would make the code slower on > non-smp. Is atomic_add_unless(v, 1, 1) supposed to be slower than > 'if (!v) v = 1;' ? spin_lock() can be dropped on UP. atomic_XXX must either use an operation on main memory, meaning less efficient code generation, or must disable interrupts even on UP. Regards Oliver - 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: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [PATCH 00/10] usb-serial: Switches from spin lock to atomic_t.
- From: Alan Stern <[email protected]>
- Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [PATCH 00/10] usb-serial: Switches from spin lock to atomic_t.
- From: Luiz Fernando Capitulino <[email protected]>
- Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [PATCH 00/10] usb-serial: Switches from spin lock to atomic_t.
- References:
- [PATCH 00/10] usb-serial: Switches from spin lock to atomic_t.
- From: Luiz Fernando Capitulino <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 00/10] usb-serial: Switches from spin lock to atomic_t.
- From: Greg KH <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 00/10] usb-serial: Switches from spin lock to atomic_t.
- From: Eduardo Pereira Habkost <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 00/10] usb-serial: Switches from spin lock to atomic_t.
- Prev by Date: Re: Broadcom 43xx first results
- Next by Date: Re: Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 00/10] usb-serial: Switches from spin lock to atomic_t.
- Next by thread: Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [PATCH 00/10] usb-serial: Switches from spin lock to atomic_t.
- Index(es):
 |