On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Let's cc linux-arch: presumably other architectures can implement cpu-local
> cmpxchg and would see some benefit from doing so.
Matheiu had a whole series of cmpxchg_local patches. Ccing him too. I
think he has some numbers for other architectures.
> The semantics are "atomic wrt interrutps on this cpu, not atomic wrt other
> cpus", yes?
Right.
> Do you have a feel for how useful it would be for arch maintainers to implement
> this? IOW, is it worth their time?
That depends on the efficiency of a cmpxchg_local vs. the interrupt
enable/ disable sequence on a particular arch. On x86 this yields about
50% so it doubles the speed of the fastpath. On other architectures the
cmpxchg is so slow that it is not worth it (ia64 f.e.)
-
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]
