[lkml]   [1998]   [Jun]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: test_and_set_bit() not atomic forever? [cli/sti in char/vt.c [patch]]
    > > processors. With a single processor, the net effect of the extra
    > > unneeded lock prefix is a double performance loss: 1) a memory cycle
    > > loss to read each lock prefix 2) since locked instruction cycles are
    > > noncacheable, this can result in the loss of _many_ clock cycles.
    > Indeed, especially those aiming to have one kernel run on everything.
    > Perhaps a fixup table to convert all the `lock's to `nop's at
    > initialisation time?

    It isnt worth the effort, with all the other SMP entanglements lock is
    a minor issue. Just compile the right kernel

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:42    [W:0.016 / U:8.248 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site