Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 8 Feb 2002 16:05:33 -0800 | From | Mike Fedyk <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] New locking primitive for 2.5 |
| |
On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 12:09:04AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > SMP 486s would need that (if there is such a beast). What point does x86 > > get the 64 bit instructions? If after 586, then it would definitely need a > > spin-lock or some-such in those functions. > > There are SMP 486 class x86 machines that are MP 1.1 compliant. They are > sufficiently rare that I think its quite acceptable to "implement" a > cmpxchg8b macro on 486 as spin_lock_irqsave/blah/spin_unlock_irqrestore. It > would be wrong to cripple the other 99.99% of SMP users >
Sorry, I only meant to say that the only question is where the split should be between spin-lock and 64bit instruction...
This would be included in the appropriate config option.
Mike - 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/
| |