![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> So you are saying that, for example > > spin_lock_irqsave(&cs->ev_lock, flags); > head = cs->ev_head; > tail = cs->ev_tail; > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cs->ev_lock, flags); > > is (mutatis mutandis) actually cheaper than > > head = atomic_read(&cs->ev_head); > tail = atomic_read(&cs->ev_tail); > > ? That's interesting. I wouldn't have expected that after reading > Documentation/atomic_ops.txt and Documentation/spinlock.txt. No, atomic_read() is cheap because it doesn't have to do a locked operation. However, operations like atomic_inc() that do need to do something special are quite expensive. For example, on x86, each atomic_inc()/atomic_dec() is the same cost as a spin_lock(), since they all have to do some sort of "lock ; incX" or "lock ; decX". But then spin_unlock() is cheap, because it can do a simple unlocked mov. So in other words, spin_lock_irqsave(&lock, flags); ++head1; ++head2; spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock, flags); should be cheaper than atomic_inc(&head1); atomic_inc(&head2); On the other hand, if you use the spinlock variant, then you do incur an extra cost by requiring the lock for both reads and writes, instead of the cheap atomic_read(). But complex use of atomic_t is very hard to get right, so it's usually better to use a spinlock. - R. - 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: 2006-03-03 01:01 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||