Andi Kleen wrote:
On Saturday 07 January 2006 03:52, Nick Piggin wrote:
No. On many load/store architectures there is no good way to do local_t,
so something like ppc32 or ia64 just uses all atomic operations for
well, they're just broken and need to be fixed to not do that.
How?
Also I bet with some tricks a seqlock like setup could be made to work.
I asked you how before. If you can come up with a way then it indeed
might be a good solution... The problem I see with seqlock is that it
is only fast in the read path. That path is not the issue here.
local_t, and ppc64 uses 3 counters per-cpu thus tripling the cache
footprint.
and ppc64 has big caches so this also shouldn't be a problem.
Well it is even less of a problem for them now, by about 1/3.
Performance-wise there is really no benefit for even i386 or x86-64
to move to local_t now either so I don't see what the fuss is about.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
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]
