[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Why Semaphore Hardware-Dependent?
    On Tuesday 29 August 2006 12:05, David Howells wrote:

    >Because i386 (and x86_64) can do better by using XADDL/XADDQ.

    x86-64 has always used the spinlock based version.

    > On i386, CMPXCHG also ties you to what registers you may use for what to some
    > extent.

    We've completely given up these kinds of micro optimization for spinlocks,
    which are 1000x as critical as rwsems. And nobody was able to benchmark
    a difference.

    It is very very likely nobody could benchmark a difference on rwsems either.

    While I'm sure it's an interesting intellectual exercise to do these
    advanced rwsems it would be better for everybody else to go for a single
    maintainable C implementation.

    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: 2006-08-29 12:59    [W:0.018 / U:58.912 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site