Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 06 Oct 2005 16:10:10 +0200 | From | Eric Dumazet <> | Subject | Re: [discuss] Re: SMP syncronization on AMD processors (broken?) |
| |
Andi Kleen a écrit : > On Thursday 06 October 2005 15:50, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > >>Maybe we should reflect this in Kconfig ? >> >>config NR_CPUS >>range 2 128 >> >>Or use a plain int for spinlock, instead of a signed char. > > > Hmm? 2.6 already uses int as far as I can see. >
Not in public 2.6 at least.
ffffffff8030be10 <_spin_lock>: ffffffff8030be10: 55 push %rbp ffffffff8030be11: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp ffffffff8030be14: f0 fe 0f lock decb (%rdi) ffffffff8030be17: 0f 88 d1 02 00 00 js <.text.lock.spinlock> ffffffff8030be1d: c9 leaveq ffffffff8030be1e: c3 retq
Sorry Andi, I only trust assembly :)
Eric
- 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/
| |