lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: spin_unlock optimization
Date
Hi Gabor,

well, not necessarily. If you would modify the spin_unlock asm sequence at
boot time, there would be no performance loss. But self-modifying code is
not very desirable, so...

Greetz,
Oliver

>
> Yes. Runtime option is not acceptable imho. movb $0,%0 can be fast but if
> you need a conditional instruction to test if the fast version can be used
> uses more and more cycles.
>
> --
> ---[ LGB/DC ]------------[ University Of Veszprém ]------[ Lénárt
Gábor ]---
> "The truth is out there" "We're l{ea,i}ving together" "The future is
dark."
> ---[ 30/2270823 ]--------[ http://lgb.hal.vein.hu ]---------[ 87/477074 ]
---
> finger lgb@hal2000.hal.vein.hu for more !LINUX! SMS :
lgblgb@westel900.net


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.117 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site