Re: Why Semaphore Hardware-Dependent?

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006, Andi Kleen wrote:

> rwsems don't -- there are two flavours: a generic spinlock'ed one and a 
> complicated atomic based one that only works on some architectures. 
> As far as I know nobody has demonstrated a clear performance increase
> from the first so it might be possible to switch all to the generic
> implementation.

Yup that would be the major issue.I'd be interested to see some tests in 
that area.
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why Semaphore Hardware-Dependent?
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Why Semaphore Hardware-Dependent?
    • From: "Dong Feng" <[email protected]>
  • Re: Why Semaphore Hardware-Dependent?
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [take14 0/3] kevent: Generic event handling mechanism.
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 05/18] [PATCH] BLOCK: Don't call block_sync_page() from AFS [try #4]
• Previous by thread: Re: Why Semaphore Hardware-Dependent?
• Next by thread: Re: Why Semaphore Hardware-Dependent?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]