[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] local_irq_disable removal

    * Thomas Gleixner <> wrote:

    > On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 13:51 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
    > > On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > > Interesting .. So "cli" takes 7 cycles , "sti" takes 7 cycles. The current
    > > method does "lea" which takes 1 cycle, and "or" which takes 1 cycle. I'm
    > > not sure if there is any function call overhead .. So the soft replacment
    > > of cli/sti is 70% faster on a per instruction level .. So it's at least
    > > not any slower .. Does everyone agree on that?
    > No, because x86 is not the whole universe

    x86 is actually a 'worst-case', because it has one of the cheapest CPU
    level cli/sti implementations. Usually it's the hard-local_irq_disable()
    overhead on non-x86 platforms that is a problem. (ARM iirc) So in this
    sense the soft-flag should be a win on most sane architectures.

    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: 2005-06-12 09:02    [W:0.020 / U:32.036 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site