Am Mittwoch, 7. Dezember 2005 16:40 schrieben Sie:
> On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 16:37 +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 7. Dezember 2005 16:22 schrieb Arjan van de Ven:
> > > > On the other hand, Oliver needs to be careful about claiming too much. In
> > > > general atomic_t operations _are_ superior to the spinlock approach.
> > >
> > > No they're not. Both are just about equally expensive cpu wise,
> > > sometimes the atomic_t ones are a bit more expensive (like on parisc
> > > architecture). But on x86 in either case it's a locked cycle, which is
> > > just expensive no matter which side you flip the coin...
> >
> > You are refering to SMP, aren't you?
>
> yes.
> on UP neither is a locked instruction ;)
But the atomic variant has to guard against interrupts, at least on
architectures that do load/store only, hasn't it? AFAICT it is even
theoretically impossible to tell for the compiler whether a function
is always called with interrupts off.
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/
[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]
