Re: [patch] i386 spinlocks: disable interrupts only if we enabled them

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Benjamin LaHaise <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 01:43:08AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>  > we dont inline that code anymore. So i think the optimization is fine.
> 
>  Why is that?  It adds memory traffic that has to be synchronized 
>  before the lock occurs and clobbered registers now in the caller.

Is the inlined lock;decb+jns likely to worsen the text size?  I doubt it. 
Overall text will get bigger due to the out-of-line stuff, but that's OK.

I'm sure we went over all this, but I don't recall the thinking.
-
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]
  Powered by Linux