lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Synchronizing Bit operations V2
Date
On Friday 31 March 2006 18:22, Hans Boehm wrote:

> My impression is that approach (1) tends not to stick, since it involves
> a substantial performance hit on architectures on which the fence is
> not implicitly included in atomic operations. Those include Itanium and
> PowerPC.

At least the PPC people are eating the overhead because back when they
didn't they had a long string of subtle powerpc only bugs caused by that

It's a stability/maintainability vs performance issue. I doubt the
performance advantage would be worth the additional work. I guess
with the engineering time you would need to spend getting all this right
you could do much more fruitful optimizations.

-Andi
-
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: 2006-03-31 18:40    [W:0.114 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site