lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]   [less markup]   [headers]   [forward]  
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateMon, 09 Dec 2002 22:55:45 -0800
Fromgeorge anzinger <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] High-res-timers part 1 (core) take 20
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 04:27:56AM -0800, george anzinger wrote:
> > >
> > > that's why spinlocks are effectively nops on UP.
> > > What you say is true of just about every spinlock user, and no
> > > they shouldn't all do some IF_SMP() thing; the spinlock itself should be
> > > (and is) zero on UP
> >
> > But with preemption, they really are not nops on UP...
> 
> that doesn't justify fuglyfying the kernel code. If you can't live
> with the overhead of preemption, disable preemption. Simple.
> We DON'T want
> spin_lock_nop_on_preempt()
> ...
> 
> spin_unlock_nop_on_preempt()
> 
> really, I don't, and I can't see anyone else wanting that either

Well, I just thought it was an optimization.  I will leave
it the way it is.

-- 
George Anzinger   george@mvista.com
High-res-timers: 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
Preemption patch:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 11:31    [W:0.178 / U:1.270 seconds]
©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans