Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Jan 2003 02:16:24 -0500 (EST) | From | Zwane Mwaikambo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][2.5] smp_call_function_mask |
| |
On 20 Jan 2003, Alan wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-01-17 at 05:18, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > > + /* Wait for response */ > > + while (atomic_read(&data.started) != num_cpus) > > + barrier(); > > Only old old intel x86 that does -bad- things as it > generates a lot of bus locked cycles. Better to do > > while(atomic_read(&data.started) != num_cpus) > while(data.started.value != num_cpus) > { > barrier(); > cpu_relax(); > } > > I would think ?
Cool, would a cpu_relax only be sufficient since that also has the memory barrier?
Zwane -- function.linuxpower.ca
- 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/
| |