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]
