Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:56:53 +1000 Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:47:32 +0100
David Howells <[email protected]> wrote:
+ if (type == AFS_LOCK_READ &&
+ vnode->flags & (1 << AFS_VNODE_READLOCKED)) {
Here we use
vnode->flags & (1 << foo)
+ set_bit(AFS_VNODE_LOCKING, &vnode->flags);
and elsewhere we use set_bit(foo, &vnode->flags) and clear_bit()
This is a bit strange. Does the open-coded bit-test have any performance
benefit on any architecture? Not on x86 at least, afaik.
It uses locked operations on x86, but you can use __set_bit instead
(which should always be at least as efficient as the C version).
I said "bit-test". ie: test_bit(). That doesn't use a locked operation.
So you did. Then to answer that, yes it could be faster because there are
stupid volatiles sprinkled all over the bitops code so you could easily
end up having to do more loads. Does it make a real difference? Unlikely,
but David loves counting cycles :)
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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]
