[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
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 <> 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;

#define mutex_counter_t atomic_t

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

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-12-20 09:15    [W:0.070 / U:1.012 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site