![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Jörn Engel wrote: > On Wed, 29 June 2005 17:14:32 +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > > > > This is why I always use _irqsave. Less error prone. > > And locking is a very easy to get 'slightly' wrong, thus > > I trade 0.1% of performance for code simplicity. > > But sometimes you get lucky and trade 100ms latency for code > simplicity. Of course, the audio people don't mind anymore, now that > we have all sorts of realtime patches. Everyone's happy! > God! If you are holding a spin_lock for 100ms, something is terribly wrong, especialy since you better not schedule holding that spin_lock. Spinlocks are _suppose_ to be for quick things. The difference in latency between a *_lock and *_lock_irqsave only effects UP, on SMP both will give the same latency, since another CPU might be busy spinning while waiting for that lock, heck, on SMP the latency of *_lock can actually be higher, since, as I already said, the other CPU will even have to wait while the CPU that has the lock is servicing interrupts. Although I must say that with all the realtime patches I'm happy :-) -- Steve - 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: 2005-06-29 14:58 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||