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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans