Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 9 Dec 2002 07:34:34 -0500 | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] High-res-timers part 1 (core) take 20 |
| |
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 - 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/
| |