Re: [patch 04/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem, add-atomic-call-func-x86_64.patch

On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 11:35:22AM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> So 14 instructions total with preemption disabling, and that's with the 
> best implementation possible by open coding everything instead of 
> relying on generic functions/macros.

I agree with your analysis Nicolas.

However, don't forget to compare this with our existing semaphore
implementation which is 9 instructions, or 8 for the SMP version.

In total, this means that mutexes will be _FAR MORE EXPENSIVE_ on ARM
than our semaphores.

Forcing architectures down the "lets make everything generic" path
does not always hack it.  It can't do by its very nature.  Generic
implementations are *always* sub-optimal and it is pretty clear
that any gain that mutexes _may_ give is completely wasted on ARM
by the overhead of having a generic framework imposed upon us.

So, to sum up, if this path is persued, mutexes will be a bloody
disaster on ARM.  We'd be far better off sticking to semaphores
and ignoring this mutex stuff.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core
-
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 04/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem, add-atomic-call-func-x86_64.patch
    • From: Nicolas Pitre <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 04/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem, add-atomic-call-func-x86_64.patch
    • From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 04/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem, add-atomic-call-func-x86_64.patch
    • From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [patch 04/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem, add-atomic-call-func-x86_64.patch
    • From: Zwane Mwaikambo <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 04/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem, add-atomic-call-func-x86_64.patch
    • From: David Woodhouse <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 04/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem, add-atomic-call-func-x86_64.patch
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 04/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem, add-atomic-call-func-x86_64.patch
    • From: Nicolas Pitre <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 04/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem, add-atomic-call-func-x86_64.patch
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 04/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem, add-atomic-call-func-x86_64.patch
    • From: Nicolas Pitre <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 04/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem, add-atomic-call-func-x86_64.patch
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 04/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem, add-atomic-call-func-x86_64.patch
    • From: Nicolas Pitre <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 04/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem, add-atomic-call-func-x86_64.patch
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 04/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem, add-atomic-call-func-x86_64.patch
    • From: Nicolas Pitre <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH RT 00/02] SLOB optimizations
• Next by Date: Re: [Alsa-devel] 2.6.15-rc6: boot failure in saa7134-alsa.c
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch 04/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem, add-atomic-call-func-x86_64.patch
• Next by thread: Re: [patch 04/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem, add-atomic-call-func-x86_64.patch
• 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]