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

[Xavier Bestel <xavier.bestel@free.fr>]

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 <nico@cam.org> 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/