[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:0.146 / U:7.712 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site