![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread Complete thread (EXPERIMENTAL) |
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 04:27:56AM -0800, george anzinger wrote: that's why spinlocks are effectively nops on UP. What you say is true of just about every spinlock user, and no they shouldn't all do some IF_SMP() thing; the spinlock itself should be (and is) zero on UP But with preemption, they really are not nops on UP... that doesn't justify fuglyfying the kernel code. If you can't live with the overhead of preemption, disable preemption. Simple. We DON'T want spin_lock_nop_on_preempt() ... spin_unlock_nop_on_preempt() really, I don't, and I can't see anyone else wanting that either Well, I just thought it was an optimization. I will leave it the way it is. -- George Anzinger george@mvista.com High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/ Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml | ||||||||||
![]() | |||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:31 [W:0.115 / U:0.000 seconds] ©2003-2005 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||