Re: [patch 1/4] net: percpufy frequently used vars -- add percpu_counter_mod_bh

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

 



On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 01:07:26PM -0800, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
> But on non x86, local_bh_disable() is gonna be cheaper than a cli/atomic op no?
> (Even if they were switched over to do local_irq_save() and
> local_irq_restore() from atomic_t's that is).

It's still more expensive than local_t.

> And if we use local_t, we will add the overhead for the non bh 
> percpu_counter_mod for non x86 arches.

Last time I checked, all the major architectures had efficient local_t 
implementations.  Most of the RISC CPUs are able to do a load / store 
conditional implementation that is the same cost (since memory barriers 
tend to be explicite on powerpc).  So why not use it?

		-ben
-- 
"Time is of no importance, Mr. President, only life is important."
Don't Email: <[email protected]>.
-
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