![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Arjan van de Ven wrote: >>Yes that's the tradeoff. I just feel that the former may be better, >>especially because the latter can be timing dependant (so you may get >>things randomly "happening"), and the former is apparently very low >>overhead compared with the cost of taking the lock. Any numbers, >>anyone? > > > as I said, since the cacheline just got dirtied, the write is just half > a cycle which is so much in the noise that it really doesn't matter. > Yes, you were the "apparently" that I cited :) I just wondered if Ingo has or has seen numbers that make him dislike this way of doing it. I would have thought that the spinlock structure and code bloat, and the lock break checks in fast paths would be the far greater cost of lockbreak than what Hugh's patch adds. But real numbers are pretty important when it comes to this kind of thing. - 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: 2005-03-22 14:11 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||