lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 04/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem, add-atomic-call-func-x86_64.patch
Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>
>>* David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 09:49 -0800, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi Ingo,
>>>> Doesn't this corrupt caller saved registers?
>>>
>>>Looks like it. I _really_ don't like calling functions from inline
>>>asm. It's not nice. Can't we use atomic_dec_return() for this?
>>
>>we can use atomic_dec_return(), but that will add one more instruction
>>to the fastpath. OTOH, atomic_dec_return() is available on every
>>architecture, so it's a really tempting thing. I'll experiment with it.
>
>
> Please consider using (a variant of) xchg() instead. Although
> atomic_dec() is available on all architectures, its implementation is
> far from being the most efficient thing to do for them all. For
> example, see my discussion about swp on ARM:
>

Considering that on UP, the arm should not need to disable interrupts
for this function (or has someone refuted Linus?), how about:

#ifndef CONFIG_SMP
typedef struct { volatile int counter; } mutex_counter_t;
static inline int mutex_counter_dec_return(mutex_counter *v)
{
return --v->counter;
}
...
#else
#define mutex_counter_t atomic_t
...
#endif

Or does that get too bulky or have other problems?

MP ARMs should have an adequate atomic_dec_return.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

-
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: 2005-12-20 09:15    [W:0.157 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site