lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch 04/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem, add-atomic-call-func-x86_64.patch
    On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 11:35:22AM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
    > So 14 instructions total with preemption disabling, and that's with the
    > best implementation possible by open coding everything instead of
    > relying on generic functions/macros.

    I agree with your analysis Nicolas.

    However, don't forget to compare this with our existing semaphore
    implementation which is 9 instructions, or 8 for the SMP version.

    In total, this means that mutexes will be _FAR MORE EXPENSIVE_ on ARM
    than our semaphores.

    Forcing architectures down the "lets make everything generic" path
    does not always hack it. It can't do by its very nature. Generic
    implementations are *always* sub-optimal and it is pretty clear
    that any gain that mutexes _may_ give is completely wasted on ARM
    by the overhead of having a generic framework imposed upon us.

    So, to sum up, if this path is persued, mutexes will be a bloody
    disaster on ARM. We'd be far better off sticking to semaphores
    and ignoring this mutex stuff.

    --
    Russell King
    Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
    maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core
    -
    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: 2005-12-20 20:23    [W:0.031 / U:0.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site