On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > 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're overgeneralizing.
Sure, a locked cycle has a certain expense. But it's a lot less than the
expense of a contested spinlock. On the other hand, many times UP systems
can eliminate spinlocks entirely. There are lots of variables and many
possible tradeoffs.
Alan Stern
-
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]
